ACA Land Bow Hunting Only

[MK2750]

Originally Posted by 4pointswest

I'm not calling you a snowflake, but the term snowflake is used to characterize those young adults of a certain generation as being more prone to taking offense and less resilient than previous generations, or as being too emotionally vulnerable to cope with views that challenge their own. Just saying.

I think I may be from a generation or 3 before that. We have a tenancy not to suffer fools gladly, is that the same thing?

Not calling you a fool but there seems to be two types of people that post here. Those that bring insight into the conversation (in this particular case the restriction of firearms on ACA land) and fools that bring nothing relevant to the discussion except a childish attempt to antagonize.

Just saying.

[MK2750]

Originally Posted by Father of five

Dear MK2750 it’s been 24 hours or so of debating our own opinions, there are some points I agree with you on and others of which you may never convince me.

Continue to be passionate about hunting rights and access for all of us for this I Thank You

By the way my name calling was out of line, thanks for not reciprocating and stooping to my level
Enjoy the rest of the hunting season

Yes I’m tapping out on this one

I appreciate that, what is written is not often read the way it was intended. I did not intend for this discussion to go the way it did.

Happy hunting to you as well.

[Diesel.1974]

Originally Posted by MK2750

ANYWAY, I spoke with a fine member of the ACA and was given a full and acceptable explanation. He and I agree that restriction of activities is not a practice the ACA wants or should be a part of but in this case it was necessary to secure this important property as part of the purchase agreement.

The legal question remains but I certainly won't be violating the wises of the association given these extraordinary circumstances explained to me.

Thanks for the intelligent and polite discussion. Please go back to what ever it is that you people like to talk about. I apologize for bringing up questions about restrictions on our ability to hunt with firearms and our rights to access lands purchased with our tax dollars. Obviously theses topics are not relevant and have no place on the hunting forum.

What were the reasons they gave you?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by MK2750 View Post
ANYWAY, I spoke with a fine member of the ACA and was given a full and acceptable explanation. He and I agree that restriction of activities is not a practice the ACA wants or should be a part of but in this case it was necessary to secure this important property as part of the purchase agreement.

The legal question remains but I certainly won't be violating the wises of the association given these extraordinary circumstances explained to me.

Thanks for the intelligent and polite discussion. Please go back to what ever it is that you people like to talk about. I apologize for bringing up questions about restrictions on our ability to hunt with firearms and our rights to access lands purchased with our tax dollars. Obviously theses topics are not relevant and have no place on the hunting forum.

So if instead of getting riled up and starting this thread to rant on about how wrong it was for this land to be limited to bowhunting only, you had just waited until you had called the ACA today, and heard their explanation, there would have been no reason for this thread to exist.

[SLH]

Originally Posted by MK2750

ANYWAY, I spoke with a fine member of the ACA and was given a full and acceptable explanation. He and I agree that restriction of activities is not a practice the ACA wants or should be a part of but in this case it was necessary to secure this important property as part of the purchase agreement.

The legal question remains but I certainly won't be violating the wises of the association given these extraordinary circumstances explained to me.

Thanks for the intelligent and polite discussion. Please go back to what ever it is that you people like to talk about. I apologize for bringing up questions about restrictions on our ability to hunt with firearms and our rights to access lands purchased with our tax dollars. Obviously theses topics are not relevant and have no place on the hunting forum.

Are you going to share this "full and acceptable explanation" or should we just suppose that it was a condition of the transaction. Which I would suggest is a reasonable condition for both "buyer" and "seller" for the betterment of the mission of ACA.

I'd also just like to add that I find it so frustrating when it is suggested (especially in a situation like this) that something like bow only or fly tackle only is "eltist" or "restrictive". It is not, it is open equally to all, some just choose to not take part.

As for ACA's decision to be a part of this deal, it is much better to be a part of this rather than be sidelined by some ideology like what was suggested in the OP.

[MK2750]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

So if instead of getting riled up and starting this thread to rant on about how wrong it was for this land to be limited to bowhunting only, you had just waited until you had called the ACA today, and heard their explanation, there would have been no reason for this thread to exist.

I mentioned right off the bat that i would be contacting ACA and there was no rant involved. The restriction bothered me and I wanted to discuss it with other outdoorsmen. I wanted to know if other sites had this restriction or not and see what others thought of it.

I still think it is wrong to restrict firearms and so did the gentleman I spoke to at ACA, Their hands were basically tied in this case.

Shouldn't you be out swatting farm fresh chickens and letting on you are a supreme hunter and shotgunning extraordinaire.

[MK2750]

Originally Posted by SLH

Are you going to share this "full and acceptable explanation" or should we just suppose that it was a condition of the transaction. Which I would suggest is a reasonable condition for both "buyer" and "seller" for the betterment of the mission of ACA.

I'd also just like to add that I find it so frustrating when it is suggested (especially in a situation like this) that something like bow only or fly tackle only is "eltist" or "restrictive". It is not, it is open equally to all, some just choose to not take part.

As for ACA's decision to be a part of this deal, it is much better to be a part of this rather than be sidelined by some ideology like what was suggested in the OP.

ACA shares the same ideology according to the gentleman I spoke with and will not be promoting elitism and restrictions unless absolutely necessary. They want the sites to be equal access to everyone.

The seller considered the use of firearms a safety concern as he lives nearby. It wasn't a moral or ethical thing.

People should be able to hunt and fish with the tackle they enjoy using, not what someone else considers more ethical.

[MK2750]

Originally Posted by Diesel.1974

What were the reasons they gave you?

The seller lives nearby and considered firearms a safety concern.

[FinnDawg]

Interesting, thanks for sharing that.

[SLH]

Originally Posted by MK2750

ACA shares the same ideology according to the gentleman I spoke with and will not be promoting elitism and restrictions unless absolutely necessary. They want the sites to be equal access to everyone.

The seller considered the use of firearms a safety concern as he lives nearby. It wasn't a moral or ethical thing.

People should be able to hunt and fish with the tackle they enjoy using, not what someone else considers more ethical.

What is elitist or restrictive here? Especially in this case a landowner that has hunters interests at heart should compromise his own convictions because of a self imposed hunting technique. Is it better that it wasn't accesible at all. Ask permission on my land I'll be giving a list of rules to follow. I just don't understand such a self serving attitude.