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
I have done everything possible to get my kids involved in hunting. Every time out whether it be scouting, camping or during the actual hunt, I will challenge them to find their way back without using any electronics (GPS). Also without a compass. They know by now that I am going to challenge one of them, so right off the bat when leaving our vehicle or camp they will start picking out land marks to help them out. Makes me and them feel confident that if we were to somehow separate that they...