This country is going to go the same way as Europe, where only the rich guys can hunt.
There's a lot of truth in this statement but I don't think changing NR allocations is making states Europe.
The first responsibility of state F&G departments and legislature is to look out for the interests of it's constituents, residents of the state. If I lived in WY, I'd be howling mad at the allocation percentages, especially for the trophy species.
I'd argue, from a financial standpoint, that WY has built it's financial house on sand. It's predicated on the income received from the PP system and NR license sales. The system has worked so far but change the parameters in either, and the house starts to collapse.
If WY moves forward with this plan, someone better come up with alternative forms of revenue to offset the NR loss. Raising residents fees won't cover the gap; neither will an SFW system. From my quick calculation, WY will loose $3 million in elk tag sales, not counting the PPs potentially lost. Multiply this over the species, and WY is loosing $10 million plus on the proposal.
This thread should be archived and reviewed with each time someone argues for states to start a PP system