Quote:
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.
