It's a fine line Jeff. I fought against sharp shooters and birth control strongly. Still don't like either one. But, the analysis of the situation is difficult. My point is state park "hunts" weren't initially supposed to be more so of "hunting" but instead that of "shooting". Certainly not with bait, not with sharpshooters or suppressors, but none the less one of shooting. What the state really wanted was a "service" to be filled by citizens during those park hunts. Basically, a shoot the first three deer that came along, well as long as only one buck was killed. In essence, it was citizen sharp shooting more then hunting. Even the archery only parks were supposedly so because of local housing issues and such, but still intended to be sharp shooting.

Even the first hunt at Eagle Creek here was basically a sharp shooting event, with bait, that wounded warriors supplied the "shooters", not necessarily "hunters". This of course is where the debate of what is hunting gets messy. I believe the whole point is the cost of the deer reduction, of which you make the point Heck, as you know there is a push for suppressors for general use. In these situations of deer reductions, I don't support paid sharpshooters, or "hunters". But, instead, I do support citizen "sharpshooters", or "hunters", who are not paid whether they are allowed bait, vehicle use or other accessories.