Quote:
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.