I voted "fair," but I think they can be fair or unfair, depending on how they are structured. This, of course, is very relevant to the discussion about the situation in Arizona. Arbitrarily deciding that non-residents can't have more than 10% of licenses seems rather unfair to me.
Analyzing the situation, reviewing the effects on the game herd, state economy, and balancing fair opportunities for local sportsmen, and then coming to the conclusion that no more than 10% of licenses should go to non-residents, on the other hand, seems perfectly fair.
In other words, it's not the percentage that matters, but how that percentage is arrived at. This, in essence, was the ruling of the court in the Arizona case.
Let the individual states manage their regulations as the residents of that state see fit . If residents form other states disagree with their chosen management practices they have full rights to hunt else where.
I like certain things going on in canada issues but i dont like certain things also, but our government sucks anyway so until we get someone in thier that is gonna do thier part for everyone we will have to see
For most on here there is a dream trip floating up around in their heads but there is a question of how to pay for it. This has been a problem for all hunters that wish for that elusive moose, bear, goat, sheep, elk, deer, or any other hunt where you are required to hire a guide or you choose to hire one for that hunt of a lifetime.
First off I am not a financial planner I am just a hunter that learned a long time ago that even with a great job there are going to be some...