$98 Million bucks set aside to end deer hunting and bowhunting in North America !

[firehog]

From The HSUS...

$98 Million bucks set aside to end deer hunting and bowhunting in North America !

The USA's largest anti-hunting group has launched a new legal department to challenge sportsmen in the courts.An Animal Protection Litigation section was created in the wake of the recent merger of the Humane Society of the U.S. and the Fund for Animals.Jonathan Lovvorn was selected to head the department. The organization intends to add four litigating attorneys by the end of the year.

" The animal rights movement sees the courts as the easiest way to realize it's anti-hunting agenda," sais U.S. Sportsmen's Allaince Vice President Rick Story. " Anti-hunters are in court right now to halt black bear hunting and kick sportsmen off public lands. The move to implement an HSUS Animal Protection function so quickly and the commitment to the program's expansion prove that it is a priority for the newly formed mega-anti-hunting rights group. "
Lovvorn has been a partner with Meyer & Glitzenstein, the Washington, D.C. law firm used by the Fund for Animals in legal battles against sportsmen. He will assume his duties as vice president on January 1, 2005.

The merger of the two anti-hunting groups was announced on November 22, 2004. It will formally occur on January 1, 2005. The new group will have as much as $98 million in annual support to derail hunting and traditional wildlife management in the United States.

After the merger, the new organization will continue to be known as the Humane Society of the United States. It has stated that the abolition of hunting and trapping will be priority issues. Deer hunting and bowhunting are the first forms of hunting that the group has vowed to eradicate.
Voices for Wildlife: Grassroots Activism for Wildlife Protection

Designed to empower activists and concerned citizens, API's unique grassroots Voices for Wildlife campaign provides tools, assistance, and expertise to anyone who wants to help change their state's wildlife management policies through the administrative process.

Every state has a wildlife agency that is responsible for the conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat. In the past these agencies have catered to "consumptive wildlife users" who view wildlife as a resource to be hunted, trapped, or fished. Voices for Wildlife works to change this status quo and improve protections for wildlife by helping animal advocates become involved in their state's wildlife management policy and regulatory decision-making process.
Sounds like things may only get worse for hunters across the nation. I hope we are prepared to defend, our heritage and sport, in this state.

[firehog]

(Columbus) - Ten sportsmen’s organizations, businesses and publications launched the first steps in the defense of bowhunting against new attacks against the sport.

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance convened a conference call of national bowhunting interests in the wake of the announced merger of the Humane Society of the United States and the Fund for Animals. The newly formed mega-animal rights group declared bowhunting as a primary target.

Participants were provided a report on the combined capabilities of the new animal rights organization. The groups agreed to design and implement a plan to meet and defeat the threat to bowhunting.

“There was widespread understanding of the need to prepare,” said Rick Story, senior vice president of the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance. “There was also widespread agreement that sportsmen have the capability to defeat this threat if we organize now.”

Conference call participants included the Archery Trade Association, Bowhunter Magazine, Bowhunting.net, Bowhunting World Magazine, the Bowsite, the International Bowhunting Organization, National Bowhunter Education Foundation, National Field Archery Association, Pope and Young Club and the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance.

The organizations will meet in January during the Archery Trade Association Show in Indianapolis, Indiana.

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance protects the rights of hunters, anglers and trappers in the courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress and through public education programs. For more information about the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance and its work, call (614) 888-4868 or visit its website, www.ussportsmen.org.

I know this is "old news", but it relates to the topic. The Bowhunters Allience has been formed, and are proactively preparing to battle these nuts. I had a chance to sit and pow-wow w/ Pat Lefemin (Bowsite) and Doug Jennerette ((USSA) and drank a few beers and discussed this merger and how it would be handled only a few weeks after it had taken place. The plan they were erecting was ti be very straight forward and to the point. No stones were to be unturned in their dilligence. I haven't had time to look into the progress they have made, but will shortly.
Like good hunters we must always be aware of our surroundings and be prepared. As "civillians" our best defence is to support organizations like (USSA) IMO


Folks this is a reality, these two groups have set their sites. And we as hunters must be active, and take part in preparing to defend our sports.
From what I know its gonna be attacked through the courts not politicians. DNR and Game Commissions across the nation will be the ones attacked in court, I suspect. Its easier to sway a liberal activist judge than to sway the general population. 98 million dollars pays for alot of attorney fees.
I understand canned hunts will be the first agenda, and bow hunting as well.
Humane Society of the United States and the Fund for Animals, will attack, and I hope we are prepared across the states.

[firehog]

HSUS is a multinational conglomerate with ten regional offices in the United States and a special Hollywood Office that promotes and monitors the media’s coverage of animal-rights issues. It includes a huge web of organizations, affiliates, and subsidiaries. Some are nonprofit, tax-exempt “charities,” while others are for-profit taxable corporations, which don’t divulge anything about their financial dealings.

This unusually complex structure means that HSUS can hide expenses where the public would never think to look. Accordingly, HSUS’s true global net worth is extremely difficult to measure. Money routinely goes back and forth between HSUS affiliates and, short of a full-scale IRS audit, is impossible to track.

There is an enormous difference between animal “welfare” organizations, which work for the humane treatment of animals, and animal “rights” organizations, which work to completely end the use and ownership of animals. The former have been around for centuries; the latter emerged in the 1980s, with the rise of the radical animal-rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

In 1980, HSUS officially began to change its focus from animal welfare to animal rights. A vote was taken at the national conference in San Francisco and it was formally resolved that the group would “pursue on all fronts … the clear articulation and establishment of the rights of all animals … within the full range of American life and culture.”

In Animal Rights and Human Obligations, the published proceedings of this conference, HSUS stated unequivocally that “there is no rational basis for maintaining a moral distinction between the treatment of humans and other animals.”

The group completed its animal-rights transformation during the 1990s, changing its personnel in the process. HSUS assimilated dozens of staffers from PETA and other animal-rights groups, even employing John “J.P.” Goodwin, a former Animal Liberation Front member and spokesman with a lengthy arrest record and a history of promoting arson to accomplish animal liberation.

Since its inception, the Humane Society of the Unites States has systematically tried to limit the choices of American consumers in dozens of areas. The organization is against any kind of dog breeding, conventional livestock and poultry farming, rodeos, circuses, horse racing, marine aquariums, and fur trapping. And that's just the beginning

HSUS doesn’t help local humane societies save dogs and cats, but it does fly in and out of communities, pouring in thousands of dollars to change their laws. “HSUS was the financial clout that rammed Initiative 713, the anti-trapping measure, down our throats,” reports Rich Landers of the Spokane (WA) Spokesman-Review. “I pleaded [with Wayne Pacelle, HSUS’s government affairs VP] at least four times for examples of HSUS commitment in Washington [state] other than introducing costly anti-hunting and anti-wildlife management initiatives. He had no immediate answer but promised to send me the list of good things HSUS does in this state. That was six months ago, and I presume Pacelle is still searching.”

Despite an animal-rights agenda every bit as radical as PETA’s, the Humane Society of the United States has gained entry to countless segments of polite society. One of the more frightening consequences of this is the group’s relatively unfettered access to U.S. schools.

Through its National Association for Humane and Environmental Education, as well as a series of animal-rights-oriented publications, HSUS spreads its four-legs-good message to schoolchildren as young as five.

One package, titled People and Animals -- A Humane Education Guide, suggests films and books for teachers to present to their students. In these recommended teaching tools, sport hunters are called “selective exterminators” and “drunken slobs” who participate in a “blood sport” and a “war on wildlife” with “maniacal attitudes toward killing.” Another teachers’ guide contains anti-circus stories in which animals are repeatedly depicted as overworked and abused.

At the same time, HSUS hypocritically complains that it is inappropriate for the federal government to distribute educational materials about the use of animals in medical research laboratories, complaining: “These materials inappropriately target young people, who do not possess the cognitive ability to make meaningful decisions regarding highly controversial and complex issues.”

One package, titled People and Animals -- A Humane Education Guide, suggests films and books for teachers to present to their students. In these recommended teaching tools, sport hunters are called “selective exterminators” and “drunken slobs” who participate in a “blood sport” and a “war on wildlife” with “maniacal attitudes toward killing.” Another teachers’ guide contains anti-circus stories in which animals are repeatedly depicted as overworked and abused.

At the same time, HSUS hypocritically complains that it is inappropriate for the federal government to distribute educational materials about the use of animals in medical research laboratories, complaining: “These materials inappropriately target young people, who do not possess the cognitive ability to make meaningful decisions regarding highly controversial and complex issues.”

For all its talk about puppies and kittens, the Humane Society of the United States does not operate a single animal shelter. So what does HSUS do with the millions it raises using the furry faces of Fido and Fluffy?

HSUS has big money that has attracted some nasty characters. The group has had, in particular, more than its fair share of financial scandals.

In 2001, the multi-million-dollar conglomerate gave only $62,000 to hands-on humane societies, and $97,500 to the Denver Dumb Friends League (which insists upon animal-rights-friendly “companion animal” terminology and invested in the ill-fated Humane Equity Fund). Worse, HSUS employees have complained to the press that their organization wastes its resources on fundraising expenses and high salaries for its chief executives.

President Emeritus John Hoyt once instructed his members on becoming more humane: “We begin, I suggest, by living more simply, more sparingly.” He certainly didn’t take his own advice. He made over $200,000 per year running HSUS. In 1986, the group bought his home in Germantown, Maryland, for $310,000 and allowed him to live there rent-free until 1992. He also received a $100,000 interest-free loan from an HSUS board member in 1982, while another board member subsidized overseas travel for Hoyt’s wife for several years. He received a $1 million bonus when he resigned as CEO.

Current HSUS president Paul Irwin follows his fellow minister’s example, taking home a $300,000 salary. HSUS also paid him $85,000 for renovations to a beachfront cabin in Maine; the organization held the property in trust, but Irwin and his family used it for vacations. Irwin also collected $15,000 in executor’s fees from a board member’s estate without notifying the board in advance, as demanded by HSUS’s “code of ethics.”

Some of HSUS’s hefty fundraising expenses have ended up in the pockets of the notorious fundraising company Share Group, Inc. The telemarketing firm made headlines during the 2000 Democratic National Convention when the DNC and the Gore 2000 Presidential Campaign both dropped Share Group after a reporter pointed out that former owner Michael Ansara was still involved in the company. Ansara had been ordered to surrender control of Share Group after he pleaded guilty to a felony conspiracy charge related to a money-moving scheme for Ron Carey’s 1997 Teamsters Union presidential reelection campaign.

Nonprofit affiliates:

Alice Morgan Wright-Edith Goode Fund (DC);
Alternative Congress Trust (DC);
Animal Channel (DC);
Association Humanataria De Costa Rica;
Center for the Respect of Life and Environment (DC);
Charlotte and William Parks Foundation for Animal Welfare (DC);
Conservation Endowment Fund (see ICEC) (CA);
Earth Restoration Corps. (DC);
Earthkind Inc. (DC);
Earthkind International Inc. (DC);
Earthkind USA (DC);
Earthkind USA (MT); Earthkind UK [ also affiliated with the International Fund for Animal Welfare] (UK);
Earthvoice (DC);
Earthvoice International (DC);
Eating with a Conscience Campaign (DC);
HSUS Hollywood Office (formerly The Ark Trust Inc.) (CA);
Humane Society International (DC), which also operates

the International Center for Earth Concerns (ICEC) in Ojai, California,
the Center for Earth Concerns in Costa Rica, and
the Conservation Endowment Fund in California;
Humane Society International Australian Office Inc.;
Humane Society International of Latin America;
Humane Society of the United States (DE);
Humane Society of the United States (MD);
Humane Society of the United States (MT);
Humane Society of the United States (PA);
Humane Society of the United States (VT);
Humane Society of the United States California Branch Inc. (CA);
Humane Society of the United States New Jersey Branch Inc. (NJ);
Humane Society of the United States Wildlife Land Trust (DC);
Humane Society of the United States Wildlife Land Trust (KS);
Humane Society of the United States Wildlife Land Trust (OK);
Humane Society of the United States Utah State Branch (UT);
Humane Society University (DC);
Institute for the Study of Animal Problems (DC);
Interfaith Council for the Protection of Animals and Nature (GA);
International Society for the Protection of Animals (UK);
International Wilderness Leadership Wild Foundation Inc. [d/b/a The WILD Foundation] (CA);
Kindness Club International Inc. (DC);
Meadowcreek Project Inc. (AR);
Meadowcreek Inc. (AR);
National Association for Humane and Environmental Education (DC);
National Humane Education Center (VA);
Species Survival Network (MI);
Valerie Sheppard Humane Society University (DC);
Wildlife Rehabilitation Training Center (MA);
World Federation for the Protection of Animals Inc. (DC);
World Society for the Protection of Animals (DC);
World Society for the Protection of Animals (IA);
World Society for the Protection of Animals (ND);
World Society for the Protection of Animals (VT);
World Society for the Protection of Animals - Canada;
World Society for the Protection of Animals - Deutshland;
World Society for the Protection of Animals International (UK);
World Society for the Protection of Animals UK (UK);
Worldwide Network Inc. (DC).

Surely with all the 501 c3's, surely we will get our tax exempt approved.

[rjet]

Maybe we should change the name of the ADHA from Arkansas deer hunters to Arkansas deer huggers. Then get tons of funding from the HSUS and use it against em. Or at least all members could go on a great hunt somewhere. :biggrin:

[Remington]

what the hell is Meadowcreek project in Arkansas?

[deerhunter]

I hate these organizations with every fiber of my being. It's pure ignorance on thier part and just a publicity high for these idiots. Think of where all that money could be put to better use such as feeding needy families and such but they would rather see thier name in lights some where defending a wild animal that could feed those same hungry children.

We as hunters need someone like Bill Gates to be a big hunter and use thier money to push these animal rights idiots into submission.

[WarblerWatcher]

what the hell is Meadowcreek project in Arkansas?Click Here (http://www.motherearthnews.com/library/1982_March_April/The_Meadowcreek_Project)
.

[firehog]

what the hell is Meadowcreek project in Arkansas?

Good eye there Remington, and nice post to show there Butch.

[Remington]

well i been tryin to load that page ever since i seen your reply WW and cant get it to load ........anyone care to hit the high spots and tell where and who they are?

[firehog]

It took a minute for it to load for me. But it appears its some community that is trying to be totally self sufficiant. No electricity, etc. raising everything on its own.

[Remington]

i finally got to see it.........wow what a bunch of weirdos..........anyways...bet them folks sure wouldnt mind eating some tenderloin and biscuits with their organicalll grown tomatoes

[rjet]

Yall arent being very brotherly to those people. I say we give me a hand in their persuit of organically grown veggies. Save all the entrails from next years kill, dig out all the deer camp outhouses and lets provide them with a few dumploads of compost. :biggrin:

[Deerslayer]

This is exactly why I was arguing on this board that we need a state constitutional amendment to protect hunting rights. I would rather have an imperfect constitutional amendment than not having one at all. Cultural changes may take longer to hit Arkansas than other places, but eventually the antis will show up here in force if they are successful in other places. I'm afraid even the average Arkansan is losing touch with our heritage and tradition. License sales are only about 10% of the population . . . what will they be in 15 years? Remember, our Game and Fish Commission has EXCLUSIVE authority to regulate hunting . . . what will we do when an anti-hunting governor is elected?

P.S. Please spread the word about the Humane Society. They have managed to hoodwink most people into thinking they only deal with cat/dog issues. I tell every friend and family member I can that the Humane Society is a radical anti-hunting organization.

[CDay]

Well guys I hate to say it but Arkansas would be one of the easier states for the "Voices for Wildlife" due to the 1/8 cent sales tax. Since every resident of Arkansas pays this the AGFC are pretty much forced to have to listen to the non hunters and anti hunters concerns right along with the hunters. Even with a constutional amendent for the right to hunt in this state would not help much because all residents of Arkansas pay into the managing of wildlife through the 1/8 cent sales tax.

States where wildlife management is funded by sportsmen alone through license sales and such will be alot harder states for the anti hunters to even be heard.

So with that it would be in the best interest of all sportsmen if we got the 1/8 sales tax over turned and allowed the legislators to increase the cost of our licenses and permits. Then this way all wildlife managing is funded by us and only by us. Then move to have a constutional amendment made for the right of hunting.

[firehog]

Deerslayer you are absolutely right, if we do not educate ourselves with these people, they will underhandly take our rights away before you and I know it. The only good defense is a good offense, and knowing your players on the other team. They have disguised their selves under a different name, and now have lots more money as well. I have only seen a few comments here and there about this, in this state and from few organizations. Other state's, from what I have read are taking action, and drawing plans, or at least discussing it. Communication about these folks can go a great distance, in just letting folks know these are not the people you think you know.

Deerslayer can you pm me your phone number. I lost the other one.

[firehog]

Lets say I have 98$ million dollars, and I know Judge so and so in this district, he is a buddy who has radical anti-hunting feelings as I do, why because he has been at every big fundraiser my organization has had. Anyways, I file a lawsuit, that bowhunting is a inhumane practice against wildlife. I hire 5-10 lawyers to sue the AGFC. It takes many thousands of dollars to defend my lawsuit, I file it in the district where I know my radical judge is sitting. I may win or I may lose, but on thing is certain, I will surely cost the state money in defending that lawsuit. With the state being underfunded in the first place, how many of these lawsuits do you think it would take to wipe out resources.

I agree I had rather have a not so perfect constitutional amendment, than to have nothing at all. Tell me I have the right to hunt, somewhere in it. At this point we are wide open. I truly feel, a amendmend can be written, and a majority of hunters can live with it.

If not prepare to have your AGFC suid from one end to the other, maybe not now, or 5 years, but ARK will get suid on hunting at some point.
They are the regulators, and that is where it will start.

[firehog]

Clyde you are right, to some degree, but amendment 75 is a done deal, no one will counter that, so we have to live with it. Plus do we want to take that money away from the AGFC. That money could help sustain our management of our resource if the state got hit with lawsuit after lawsuit. It is earmarked strictly for the AGFC. I would never say take that away.
No matter if it opens everyone up for opinion, they had the obligation to listen to all, before that was passed. It doesn't matter who pays for the wildlife, all citizens in state have the right to bitch, complain or file lawsuits. No matter if their taxes pay for the wildlife or not. Taxes is taxes, state owns deer, I pay state taxes, I had that right before amendment 75.

[Earnhardt fan #1]

Only 45% of that money goes to the AGFC

[Earnhardt fan #1]

Arkansas Constitutional Amendment 75

A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO LEVY A SALES AND USE TAX OF ONE-EIGHTH OF ONE PERCENT (1/8 OF 1%) FOR SUPPORT OF THE ARKANSAS GAME AND FISH COMMISSION, THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND TOURISM, THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HERITAGE AND KEEP ARKANSAS BEAUTIFUL.

SECTION 1. Statement of purpose. The people of the State of Arkansas find that fish, wildlife, parks, tourism and natural heritage constitute a major economic and natural resource of the state and they desire to provide additional funds to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, The Department of Parks and Tourism, the Department of Heritage and Keep Arkansas Beautiful.

SECTION 2. (a) There is hereby levied an additional excise tax of one-eighth of one percent (1/8 of 1%) upon all taxable sales of property and services subject to the tax levied by the Arkansas Gross Receipts Act (Arkansas Code 26-52-101 et seq.), and such tax shall be collected, reported, and paid in the same manner and at the same time as is prescribed by law for the collection, reporting and payment of all other Arkansas gross receipts taxes.

(b) There is hereby levied an additional excise tax of one-eighth of one percent (1/8 of 1%) upon all tangible personal property subject to the tax levied by the Arkansas Compensating Tax Act (Arkansas Code 26-53-101 et seq.), and such tax shall be collected, reported, and paid in the same manner and at the same time as is prescribed by law for the collection, reporting and payment of Arkansas compensating taxes.

SECTION 3. Use of proceeds. (a) Notwithstanding any provision of Amendment 35 or any other provision of the Arkansas Constitution to the contrary, forty-five percent (45%) of all monies collected from the tax levied herein shall be deposited in the State Treasury as special revenues and credited to the Game Protection Fund to be used exclusively by the Arkansas Game Commission, as appropriated by the General Assembly.

(b) Forty-five percent (45%) of all monies collected from the tax levied herein shall be deposited in the State Treasury as special revenues and credited to the Department of Parks and Tourism Fund Account to be used by the Department of Parks and Tourism for state park purposes, as appropriated by the General Assembly.

(c) Nine percent (9%) of all monies collected from the tax levied herein shall be deposited in the State Treasury as special revenues and credited to the Arkansas Department of Heritage Fund Account to be used exclusively by the Department of Heritage as appropriated the General Assembly.

(d) One percent (1%) of all monies collected from the tax levied herein shall be deposited in the State Treasury as special revenues and credited to the Keep Arkansas Beautiful Fund Account, which is hereby created on the books of the State Treasurer, State Auditor and the Chief Fiscal Officer of the State, to be used exclusively by Keep Arkansas Beautiful, as appropriated by the General Assembly.

SECTION 4. (a) The General Assembly shall provide for the proper administration and enforcement of this amendment by law. (b) Unless the General Assembly provides another procedure by law, the provisions of the Arkansas Tax Procedure act, Sections 26-18-101 et seq., shall so far as practicable be applicable to the tax levied by this amendment and the reporting, remitting and enforcement of the tax.

SECTION 5. Collection of the tax imposed by this amendment shall apply beginning of July 1, 1997.

[firehog]

Thanks there John.

[Cjdavis618]

The 2 look to be different things. Take a look at this PDF file and it is located in Fox Arkansas.

http://www.sustainable.org/casestudies/SIA_PDFs/SIA_arkansas.pdf

[WarblerWatcher]

Believe it's the same deal CJ .. both located in Fox,AR... founded by the same two brothers in 1979... and listed as non profit affilliates of the HSUS.:confused:

[Earnhardt fan #1]

Not trying to get under anyones skin with that post but just so people will see where the money does(or suppossed to go :confused: )

[fairweatherhunter]

Rather these groups succede or not I'll still hunt, screw 'em! If these groups are successful in this state it proves the weakness of the AG&F commission!

[Ty-Bo67]

There is very little chance for them to stop one of the greatest american traditions in the world with alot more hunters than huggers in the U.S.

[Deerslayer]

I agree that Amendment 75 may not have been the best idea for funding the AGFC, but as firehog stated, it is here to stay. It was a sales tax increase that the voters actually passed! :smack: How many times do you think the voters actually vote to pass a tax increase . . . it doesn't happen very often.

But, I don't think there will be any conflict with a hunters' right amendment and Amendment 75. One concerns sales taxes and funding, the other concerns AGFC authority to restrict hunting. Courts would see this as two separate issues.

Unfortunately, the hunting rights amendment proposed in the past session will not be referred to the voters. It had a lot of legislative support, but there were too many issues and too few spots. However, there will be another chance in 2007.

Tybo, I wish you were right. They have already been successful in stopping hunting in some places (one recent example is the New Jersey bear hunt). You have to remember that hunters are a minority of the population. There are three camps: (1) hunters and their supporters; (2) anti-hunters and their supporters; and (3) the great majority of disinterested non-hunters.

Our survival depends on: (1) securing our rights in the state constitution; and (2) winning the PR battle against the anti-hunters with the disinterested non-hunters.

[firehog]

Couldn't have said it better there Deerslayer.

[firehog]

But, I don't think there will be any conflict with a hunters' right amendment and Amendment 75. One concerns sales taxes and funding, the other concerns AGFC authority to restrict hunting. Courts would see this as two separate issues.

I think I would support a hunters right amendment. Something in my gut tells me this is right. I just can't see what they said would be a problem with it.

[Mr. Chitlin]

I think I would support a hunters right amendment. Something in my gut tells me this is right. I just can't see what they said would be a problem with it.

I am sure that it is because a hunters right amendment would take some of the power from the AGFC, power that they love so much.

[CP]

Take note of some responses from some "hunters" in this thread....:rolleyes:

http://www.arkansashunting.net/showthread.php?t=20492&highlight=hunt

[CP]

...more....:censored:

http://www.arkansashunting.net/showthread.php?t=20908

[firehog]

(firehog)-To me the bill seems fine up front. I guess I just don't know the ramifications after it is made law. I have heard several issues that have been brought up against the bill, and I just don't know. For example, would it allow folks to trespass on your land cause they have a right to hunt? It seems absurd but supposedly it could be a issue. Could it make it harder for the AGFC to fine and penalize a poacher? Don't know, but some say it could. I have heard it could make suspension of a violator’s hunting or fishing license no longer possible without the State having to initiate a lawsuit against the violator.
Would it mean non-resident sportsmen would have to be treated on an equal basis with resident sportsmen? Like license fees etc, permit quota's?

All in all, I would like to hear more info on this, and see if there are any hidden additions. On one hand I have leaned toward being against it, but I ask myself how could a Right to Hunt and Fish bill be bad for hunters and fishermen. The title seems to say it all.. The right to hunt and fish. I would not think the trespass laws would be effected. And I also really wonder how much it would effect a judge in sentencing a violator? But hey I am a ole country boy, who only works to sustain a habit of being in the outdoors.

I just didn't see the problem back then, and really not now, I just don't see the problem. And I knew my gut was telling me if the NRA was supporting it, then legally it should be sound. Not going to happen next time for me at least on this bill.