Originally posted by TWarren
View Post
As is the case with many things, the rule of law doesn't always coincide with what is right. Nobody has argued over the ownership of the animals. The stringent restrictions applied to non-resident tag allocations by almost every state (except Texas) are BS due to the large volume of federally owned (and funded) land/habitat.
The dumb thing about it is the fact that these states are missing out on a MASSIVE economic windfall if they would just pull their head out of their hind end. Limit or eliminate non-resident tag allocations on units that are solely state owned land. On the remainder of the units don't put limits on the number of non-resident vs resident tags. All are equal except the non-residents pay a higher tag fee just like they do now. That is a direct and substantial increase in funding to the Fish and Game department of that state. Indirect economic impacts would be even more massive. Hotel, restaurant, grocery, fuel, outfitters would all see increased revenue and the corresponding tax revenue would be substantial. It's stupid for the western states to handle it the way that they currently do.
Comment