Hircine
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2023
- Messages
- 101
I'm not arguing that. It's still a topic left to the trust of the state which is voted upon by the populous that resides of that state. No one is arguing that. The fact it can be voted upon to be changed is what challenges the status quo with debate and reason.Or we can agree on what legal precedent has already established that individual states have the right to determine how much opportunity they want to allocate to nonresident hunters. That’s established law affirmed by the Supreme Court. Any other argument of “it should be this or it should be that” is just opinion.
Let's take Wyoming for example. They want a 90/10 split, they have all the power to do so and that's not debatable. But everything has cause and effect. Wyoming generated over 3 times the ammount of revenue from nonresidents than residents in either 2021 or 2022. Yet they recieve very little in return for their support. The underlying problem that will become of all this is will eventually become a lack of funding. If that's their prerogative, that's their right. But it's not going to be sustainable for a state like Wyoming to function like that.
90/10 is not fair, I don't care what state it is, even my own. If residents think it's fair then lets see how they'd react if they had to start paying nonresident prices.
Again it's their right. But that doesn't mean I can't say it's greed either.