Comments on: Immediate Action Needed on Wyoming’s SF-132 Hunting with Suppressors Bill

By: Dan Herring

Dan Herring — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 19:21:34 +0000

That’s hilarious! I have a friend who was in the room at the time. By “freedom-hating left wing organization.” Do you mean all the wildlife Law enforcement, outfitters and landowners in the hearing? You can’t get more right wing then that group. All the people testifying against that suppressor bill are big 2nd amendment folks they just didn’t think it was right to use them on wildlife due to fair chase issues and obvious law enforcement issues.
I agree with Bob, the arguments made for this bill are idiotic, like “hearing protection” and every state but Wyoming and California has the bill so we should too. Using that logic, Colorado legalized weed last year so Wyoming should too? Give me a break!
As far as bears it is public record that there are just as many instances were archery hunters lose their harvested animal to a grizzlies just like rifle hunters. They locate by smell too; the bigger problem is there are too many bears! Thank the feds for that one! And “Forever west” come on! I don’t think using a $2000 silence to hunt makes you very cowboy…
All I know is I am a gun owner, a hunter and defiantly not “left wing” and I think this is a bad idea!

By: Dave Lincoln

Dave Lincoln — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 14:39:14 +0000

Hey Bill, please educate yourself on suppressors so you understand the point being made. Yes, you will still “hear” the gun firing, but a suppressor will make it very difficult for any bears in the area to tell exactly where the shot came from.

By: Bill Baker

Bill Baker — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 01:28:21 +0000

Absolutely in favor of the bill, but disagree with one of its ‘benefits’. Hunting without the use of hearing protection. This is idiotic. Suppressors make guns less noisy yes, but if you are bear hunting its probably fairly high power, and so if you use no hearing protection you’ll only go partly deaf I suppose.