We don’t need CHC to hire a lawyer, there are plenty of us to do so.
Correct, legal representation can be procured by anyone that chooses to pursue the option. Obviously, the more organized the effort, the better.
Yes, it would be nice to see our dues go towards that, but there are 5700 of us.
CHC keeps the membership dues low for a reason, and the dues certainly aren't enough to fund the attorney fees for a long, protracted fight of this kind. That is why it is so important for everyone to participate in our fundraising efforts because donations are what we use to pursue these types of matters.
If we all donated $100.00 dollars to a fund and called and hounded Ducks unlimited, Duck commander, NRA, all the big hunting corporations and gun makers to donate, even Toyota, how many hunters do you know that have a Toyota? They would be dumb not to support us.
You'd be surprised at how many organizations and businesses want to avoid getting involved. For example, Ducks Unlimited refused to even take an Oppose position much less donate money for the fight. I hope you DU members remember that next time your membership fees are due.
Also, we sat back and waited on CHC to fight this battle for us the whole time and it didn’t do us any good. I’m not saying they didn’t do their best; it just wasn’t enough sitting back being respectful and not causing an uproar only works when dealing with intelligent respectful people, which we all know is not what’s in our state capital.
It's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback when you know the outcome of the game. The simple fact of the matter is that fighting legislature in the political arena was and is the most obvious and most viable option available to us, and I would love to understand what you mean by causing an uproar and how it would have changed the outcome. The fact that the politicians had to twist as many arms as they did and break their own rules to the degree they did illustrates just how effective the opposition was at playing their game...we were winning the game until they kept changing the rules of the game each time they were about to lose.
When we do hire a lawyer, he is going to need facts. Unfortunately, that’s what lost this fight for us, in my opinion.
The facts were on our side. The data was on our side. Logic was on our side. They ignored all of these in favor of their own emotional, biased, and ignorant perspective.
They have a 20% harvest number because that’s what we gave them on tags because nobody wanted to deal with all the BS when stating they used dogs when in all reality it’s more like 90%!!!!!!
The reported number for 2010 was 45% rather than 20%. The reported number for 2011 was 47%. While I think your theory is plausible, I do not believe that 90% of bears are taken with hounds.
