When the ABA lobbied to ban some non-traditional weapons I was absolutely livid that a hunting org would "spearhead" something like that. I'm still not happy with them doing that but I hate to say it but they were right. Since this spear fiasco emerged my opinion about the issue has changed and I am in 100% agreement with the statement made by the AFGA.
Sometimes you have to pick your battles and this was one battle that the AFGA could not win so what would fighting it accomplish? IMO it would do the AFGA more harm than good particularly from a credibility standpoint in the future.
As far as supporting a ban on spears leading to the banning of other things, I don't buy it. Supporting a ban on spears is one thing and supporting a ban on baiting for bear, for example, is quite another......apples and oranges. I'm positive that the AFGA would fight extremely hard if banning the baiting for bear issue ever arose.
I am not a member of the AFGA, I just see and understand the logic behind choosing to not fight this battle. It was a wise decision IMO.
|