Well... morally I believe it's your Civic Duty... participating in your governance as an American... to act to correct something you believe is unjust or flawed in it's thinking. IF it gets under your skin and chaps your hide... ya can't go and b!tch about it later if you didn't at least TRY to bring about change, right?
Now... in a properly functioning legal system... this would be you grassroots trying to spread the word to have as many people as possible contacting their particular representative about "the thing", right?
To create the needed "pressure" from the constituency to coerce these numb-nuts politicos to actually work for US, for a change.
Seems though, that as far as rules related to us and hunting... that when you reside in a more BLUE state... there's this tendency of the constituency to run off "The Feels" way way more... in terms of the logic controlling how the lesser-educated citizenry elects to get-behind and "support" a proposed new change to rules/regs/laws.
A great example we can focus on to see what I'm talking about is the recent enacting of the Ban on take of Bobcats here in CA.
Here's the quandry though: It's a representative form of governance, right? So the idea is we're supposed to be reflecting "the will of the people". BUT... inherently w/in that "will of the people" part... is where the problem lies in our scenario here, looking specifically at this Ban of Bobcat take, for example. (How they actually put it to a Vote, on the ballot, to the general public, of all things!)
Because the vast majority of the population, in my opinion, just my opinion here, isn't all that great at critical thinking skills. And is ridiculously easily manipulated, or falls prey to simple Psychology tricks executed by politicos and further amplified by the news media.
An example of this would be the whole "Identity Politics" phenomenon, a politico essentially pounds into their heads (with ridiculously simple Psychology tricks) "we're the good guys here, those other guys, they're EVIL!" i.e. those other people with a differing view/opinion/take on the matter-at-hand are the "bad guys".
So as such, if among they're ranks... someone were to try to say "Ok, but going over what the other side proposes, in this instance, I think this makes sense." That guy? They will brow-beat him down, severely.
Ya might even say that the emergence of all of us noticing what is referred to as TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) is the perfect example of this problem. And essentially it's a problem of the majority running simply off "Feels" with like almost zero logic and reasoning being considered.
"Aww.. those Wolfs are soo beautiful, I just want to pet one! Why do you want to kill them? What's WRONG with you!!?" type of deal. And the way our society is laid out... in terms of sheer numbers.. you're never going to out-numbered the opinion trends coming from all the folks in major metro centers, who are FAR removed from understanding this issue with a level of competency to be able to make a rational decision on the matter.
So.. there's this Catch-22 kinda going on. Overall.. we all can agree that, in general, we want our governance to be reflecting "the will of the people"... cause that's the thing that gives each of us a voice in the matter. BUT... on the other hand.. like in the case of this Bobcat ban... any logical thinking person SHOULD have the thought pop into their mind of "Why would they put this to a vote by the public? When the VAST majority of them don't understand this issue enough to properly judiciously weigh-in on it to begin with!".
So, I dunno. Maybe that was part of the Founding Fathers intended architecture? This idea of "political activism" within the courts, meaning, in the end, the jury... has the ability, with their decision, to potentially fly in the face of ALLLLLL these politicos above them which may have been acting in a more self-serving way perhaps? In terms of their stance on a particular issue.
