I appreciate Ron for bringing the issue to our attention. But, I think the danger has been exaggerated. I want solid information to base decisions on. When the facts are shown to be inaccurate, I am skeptical of the rest of the argument. Simply put, Ron has made too much of this whole thing, and that means people will discount his arguments. Me included.
There are bills every year that take aim at the MDC. He told us all that passage at the committee level insured a vote. That is just wrong. The leadership determines what is voted on. All the bills in question died before a vote. The deer as livestock issue is what it is. But it does't mean every bill aimed at gutting the MDC is as viable.
Ron has the right idea, but he undermines the effort by overstating the danger. Five or more threads here about the imminent decimation of the MDC, coupled with the unnecessary calling out of the MSA because they were a little slow responding to his call to come to the capitol, make him seem like a crack pot, not a real voice for conservation. Sorry, but you asked.
When Ron goes ballistic on me for suggesting there is another way to do this, and calls me out suggesting I'm nothing more than a slug with a keyboard, well...I'm not listening. And he hurts his argument. Ron -- you've never directly responded to my questions - just started another thread.
As for your response OTF -- I just don't care. You're arguing the obvious, but over arguing it. Flowery responses are great -- but bullshit is bullshit.
You guys keep up with your screaming about how the outdoors is gonna be taken away from us and you can feel great when you get a couple crazy folks screaming you're right. But I'm more practical -- I'll fight when the danger is real.