Interesting concept... Should you make/enforce rules when you have no knowledge of the impact?

An instance of not having the credibility of knowing what is really going on.

We often allow laws to remain in place, no matter the usefulness or whether it is still a valid issue.

For instance, a law from Kentucky prohibits you from carrying an ice cream in your back pocket.

Are you thinking: "Wait, what, why would there be such a law?"

Thieves used to use this technique to entice a horse to follow them...the thief would simple walk the horse out of town...

The students "learned the importance of being civil, sensitive, and what not to do from Congressman Don Young." Wow, there's a quote (at the end of the video).

Maj Chris Nelson, Congressman Young sounds like a nut. Maybe he's acting that way to get attention? Maybe he believes what he's saying? His comments to students at Wasilla High School were out of line and offensive. And I think the comment about wolves and homelessness is at least insensitive.

Regarding the question at the top of your thread, sir ... I've worked with and know folks who have had to go to Congress to brief Congressional staffers on their area of expertise. I believe that's how members of Congress get smart on "wolves" even though they have no wolves in their districts. So, since the members were sent to Congress to make decisions and enforce rules, I'm okay with that process. The good ones will take the time to get smart on an issue before making/enforcing rules.