So if it doesn't matter if the tribes have licenses or not, why is this compact so important to them? Sounds like a bunch of woe is me on one side as much as it's grandstanding on the other.
Oklahoma Gov. Stitt won't renew hunting, fishing compacts with Cherokee, Choctaw tribes
- Thread starter 2busy
- Start Date
I'm pretty sure I qualified my response by saying that mixing isn't a new race, though the racial classification has been *******ized to further divide people along the slimmest of lines. And the census is simply ********. What RACE is WHITE? That's a identifying ethnic term, NOT a race.
Pure idiocy.
As to Stitt making smart choices here, absolutely not. I agree with him, but he's going to lose votes by the average village ***** that thinks Oklahoma should bow down anytime an indian shouts "mUh tRiBez!"
To me the tribes are getting as bad as some race hustling Black people at playing the victim card. That is one reason I will have nothing to do with them. Luckily there are enough individuals in both groups to make up for it. Oh and I think Stitt is doing a pretty good job.
Where in the world did you get those numbers? Those aren’t even close to the numbers published by ODWC.
According to the published report, 6320.00 was raised from the sales to tribal members. Sounds like there was an accounting error on the Nations part. And a failure to fulfil a contract usually leads to termination of the contract.
That could just be the amount from distributed licenses, with the remainder of the amount in an entirely different report; it all depends on how the compact was worded. F’rinstance, if it’s worded that the tribes will pass through the $2 license fees, then cut a check to cover the unused licenses, the $2 license fees would show up in the License Fees Revenues report, but that check would probably show up in a different report, maybe under Miscellaneous Income (I couldn’t find reports on the other income categories last night, but I didn’t have a lot of time to search).
My guess is that the money is just accounted for in a different category. If the tribes hadn’t fulfilled their obligations under the compact, I don’t think the state would just terminate it—they’d be suing for the recovery of the lost revenue. Even to the state, $396,000 in lost revenue (per year, no less) is enough reason to fight.
The state’s lawyers are already getting paid, and if the tribes didn’t meet the terms of the contract for three years (the few years I checked all showed about the same tribal license fees paid), you’re already over the $1M mark. That’s enough for anyone to take it to court.
I admit I'm ignorant on the matter. Would someone kindly explain why the tribes should get steeply discounted (or discounted at all) licenses?
My understanding of this specific issue (not much), is that the tribes got reduced license costs as a reparation of sorts since it was argued that they shouldn't have to pay to hunt land that was historically theirs (pre statehood). Tribal (card carrying) members are still allowed to hunt and take game without a license on tribal land but that is it. So for those members who do not live near their registered tribal lands the cheaper licenses were a way of allowing them to hunt state and/or private land at a reduced cost.
Similar threads
