I do find it sad that some people are looking so desperately to the Nanny State to protect us from all things. At what point do we stop enacting more laws that are nothing more than new wording of existing laws. We already had laws to deal with distracted drivers but now we have more laws. Are there less distracted drivers? We already have laws to deal with dogs harassing wildlife....will more laws prevent irrespopnsible dog owners from allowing their dog to harrass wildlife. We can wrap this blanket of redundant laws around us and all feel warm and fuzzy if we like but at the end of the day, you have people that follow laws and you people that don't and more redundant laws won't change that.

There will always be grey areas in every law.....regardless of the wording. If some of you had your way, we wouldn't be permitted to do anything. Listening to some on this thread, you'd figure that hunters are the most nefarious of outdoor user groups that can't be trusted to roam the mountains without supervision. We have laws to deal with big game hunters being accompanied by doogs if it was permitted. Explain again why we need more. Is every hunter out there just one step away from being a poacher.....

Being opposed to more redundant laws doesn't mean you are opposed to the premise of the law, it just means you are opposed to more redundant, pointless laws. The more conditions you add to a law, the more difficult it becomes to enforce. We don't want pack dogs chasing, herding or molesting wildlife.....why do we need breed restrictions, weight restrictions and distance restrictions? KISS for both hunter and enforcement officer.