Quote Originally Posted by Tom Smith View Post
One might say that the shooting groups might view the, as they say, the "primitive" hunting groups as a threat to shooting as it offers the anti-shooting crowd an alternative to gun sports. Is it possible once the shooters are more familiar with the "primitives" that they would turn against us.

OR am I being to paranoid, I see the same type of paranoia among my gun nut (good) friends and their reasoning sometimes goes beyond rational logic.

One of them, a good friend of mine, said on seeing the no firearms while hawking clause in the old falconry regs that he would fight any law that forbade firearms for any reason. In other words he would fight against falconry in general because it favored a no shooting stance. Now in Idaho there is no mention, so far, of firearms in the new falconry law, some want it however or at least used to.
Hi Tom:

I hope you're being a bit paranoid! It would be a shame if it were true.

Wyoming used to have the no firearm possession rule also. Maybe they still do, I’d have to look. The main reason for that here was because of the extended and liberal falconry season. I guess the state figured if you’re hunting with a hawk there was no reason to have a gun with you also, because gun hunting was closed. I saw it as a similar regulation comparing archery and gun hunting. For example, archery has its own early season where the carrying of a firearm is prohibited. And then there is a black powder season also.

You can explain to your friend that it wasn’t personal when the regulations were written excluding firearms. I look at those regulations more as a “choose your weapon” regulation. The taking of waterfowl, game birds, and small game with a hawk is just another form of weapon I reckon.

Best,

Dan