Quote:
Originally Posted by Rando
With many changes, no?
But yeah, I get it.
|
From what I’ve heard, not really. Illegal hunting is extremely prevalent to the point that the law doesn’t even matter.
Not saying you couldn’t try, but taking something away from the rich is virtually impossible. It’s us poor people that usually get the shaft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina
One of my college professors, who is both a liberal, active supporter of animal, but someone that also grew up around the Stampede - suggested that reducing the number of chucks from 4 to 3 in each heat, would dramatically lower the risk.
It seems like looking at those types of options make sense. Otherwise the arguments become too binary.
|
Stuff like that would be worth considering, but even then, it just takes two to cause a crash and crashes between wagons don’t make up all the deaths. As soon as you have two wagons the risk goes up, and I think it goes up marginally after that.
The only thing I could think of would be interval starts, having all wagons on the course but having the starts separated by 10 seconds and timed. You’re not getting any wins “by a nose” exactly, but you still keep the general timing and energy of the event. Some blend between the current situation and how they do the barrels (without going to individual heats).