Thanks for the update. Which again I'm meaning no disrespect but I think this thread is somewhat proof of how things get lost in translation. As apparently it was a proposed resolution for a .24 minimum caliber yet one specific caliber being 223 was singled out in this discussion. In turn this was an LKS resolution ...not KDF&WR directly considering this change. To me that's how easy things get blown out of proportion. Which from past experience many of the LKS resolutions passed at the convention never evolve into KDF&WR changes. The comission has them presented and puts them to committe / biologist for review ... but they never materialize into an actual reg change. This is where further transparency is needed with the LKS to communicate what's being proposed to the sportsmen of the state... not just LKS members. Which the LKS here in the Purchase as example is non-existent outside of the county involving the director or board lives in. Which Ive lived in Murray basically all my life and have never seen an advertisement put in the local papers concerning meetings, issues or any attempt to expand membership with local chapters. The same could be said of district 2 as well. So in a nutshell you have a handful of membership promoting changes based on their desires and in no way does that equate to representing all sportsmen of the state. Which breeds desention no matter how good or bad the resolution is. Which again ... no disrespect and my own personal thoughts here. As the LKS has done good things and sportsmen need that representation. But the league needs to commit to increase membership and broaden communication to ensure sustainability. If not we will see a continual increase in circumvention of the process by political means.