Oklahoma Gov. Stitt won't renew hunting, fishing compacts with Cherokee, Choctaw tribes

[TeamTomlyn]

Where in the world did you get those numbers? Those aren’t even close to the numbers published by ODWC.

See post #1, a few sentences past the picture. It seems inflated and I am sure it is but was using their numbers to justify Stitt's motive. It just doesn't make sense to sell $72 worth of licensing fees for $2.00.

 

[Okieprepper]

Lets not forget about that $275,000 lump sum and admin payment from the Choctaws. I bet there were negations that simply fell through. In other words, agreements that couldn't be reached. You know it all boils down to money and egos with politicians. No one really knows but those closest to the Governor and the Chief. There's more to this story than we will ever know so I wouldn't rush to judgement or speculation for either side of the argument.

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) —
Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt and the Choctaw Nation agreed to a one-year extension of a hunting and fishing compact that was set to expire at the end of the year, Stitt’s office announced on Tuesday.

Under the agreement signed by Stitt and Choctaw Nation Chief Gary Batton, the Choctaw Nation agrees to purchase 50,000 compact licenses for $2 each for its Oklahoma residents between the ages of 16 and 64 years old. The compact also calls for the Choctaw Nation to pay a lump sum of $200,000 to the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation and an administrative cost payment of $75,000.

“This agreement enables us to continue a benefit to our tribal members who enjoy the great outdoors and support hunting and fishing as part of our rich cultural traditions,” Batton said in a statement. Former Gov. Mary Fallin signed the original compact with the Choctaw Nation that went into effect in 2017.

NEWS LINK - KOCO.com

This has been some enjoyable banter, but I think I'll click it over to RickN's official future ex-wife thread and find my smile again. Peace out.

 

[SoonerP226]

See post #1, a few sentences past the picture. It seems inflated and I am sure it is but was using their numbers to justify Stitt's motive. It just doesn't make sense to sell $72 worth of licensing fees for $2.00.

Inflated or not, that $38M isn’t all coming from licensing, so your math doesn't work. For one thing, unless you're in Congress or the Teamsters, it's mathematically impossible for 10% of a population of 4M to be 19M.

If the tribes are actually paying $2 each for the 200,000 licenses, that's $400,000 per year. Right now, there are about 3,000 Cherokees and Choctaws buying the licenses at $2/year, for a whopping $6,000. If they were paying the full $72/year, that'd be about $230,000. That seems like a lot, yeah? There's no guarantee that they'd convert all of those $2 license sales to $72 license sales, but even if we assume they did, it's all but guaranteed that the tribes wouldn't agree to buy that many licenses at full cost.

My calculator says that $230,000 is still about $170,000 short of the $400,000 the tribes have (in theory) agreed to pay, so making tribal members pay the full cost would be a pretty significant net loss to ODWC.

$170,000 in free money to ODWC is a pretty big reason to sell those $72 licenses for $2.

Now, as noted earlier, this assumes that the tribes are actually obligated to pay for those licenses and that they are meeting those obligations. If they're only obligated, f'rinstance, to buy "up to" 200,000 licenses, and all ODWC gets is the revenues for the licenses that are actually sold, well, that's a terrible deal for ODWC, but I just can't see anybody up on Lincoln Boulevard agreeing to trade $230K for $6K.

 

[67RS/SSx2]

Why should I pay $72 for something my neighbor might only have to pay $2 for becuse of the color of their skin? Bottom line is if someone gets favoritism (in terms of finances in this case) because of the color of their skin it is racism plain and simple. And, there is only one soverign nation between Canada, Mexico, the Atlantic, and the Pacific...the U.S.A. Let's not create entitlement groups and pit groups against each other (divide and conquer?). That seems to be the job of the federal government.

 

[SoonerP226]

Why should I pay $72 for something my neighbor might only have to pay $2 for

Maybe you should get together with a bunch of your buddies and see what kind of a price break they'll cut you if you agree to buy 150,000 hunting licenses. Betcha you won't be paying $72 each for them, either.

And yes, the tribes are sovereign nations. They always have been.

 

[dennishoddy]

And yes, the tribes are sovereign nations. They always have been.

The courts have confirmed that by treaties they wrote.

 

[BobbyV]

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.

Not every tribal member lives within tribal jurisdictional boundaries. So the compact meant that they were licensed to hunt anywhere in the state.

 

[BobbyV]

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.

You said Indian isn't a race . . . I simply pointed out that Native American and Alaska Natives were in fact part of one of the 5 categories of races as defined by the census.gov site.

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!"

Oh wow . . . nice to know that unless I fall in line I'm a village ***** . . .

 

[Shadowrider]

Inflated or not, that $38M isn’t all coming from licensing, so your math doesn't work. For one thing, unless you're in Congress or the Teamsters, it's mathematically impossible for 10% of a population of 4M to be 19M.

If the tribes are actually paying $2 each for the 200,000 licenses, that's $400,000 per year. Right now, there are about 3,000 Cherokees and Choctaws buying the licenses at $2/year, for a whopping $6,000. If they were paying the full $72/year, that'd be about $230,000. That seems like a lot, yeah? There's no guarantee that they'd convert all of those $2 license sales to $72 license sales, but even if we assume they did, it's all but guaranteed that the tribes wouldn't agree to buy that many licenses at full cost.

My calculator says that $230,000 is still about $170,000 short of the $400,000 the tribes have (in theory) agreed to pay, so making tribal members pay the full cost would be a pretty significant net loss to ODWC.

$170,000 in free money to ODWC is a pretty big reason to sell those $72 licenses for $2.

Now, as noted earlier, this assumes that the tribes are actually obligated to pay for those licenses and that they are meeting those obligations. If they're only obligated, f'rinstance, to buy "up to" 200,000 licenses, and all ODWC gets is the revenues for the licenses that are actually sold, well, that's a terrible deal for ODWC, but I just can't see anybody up on Lincoln Boulevard agreeing to trade $230K for $6K.

I'm thinking that something else is tied to the compact(s). Something probably unrelated to hunting/fishing because none of the numbers make any sense at all. Why on earth do the tribes willingly buy 200k licenses knowing they aren't selling anywhere near that many? Something's afoot....

 

[BobbyV]

I'm thinking that something else is tied to the compact(s). Something probably unrelated to hunting/fishing because none of the numbers make any sense at all. Why on earth do the tribes willingly buy 200k licenses knowing they aren't selling anywhere near that many? Something's afoot....

Yep. I have no clue where the $38m total came from . . . unless it's also including other economic impacts related to hunting and fishing. But you'd think Hoskins would have supporting documentation in hand to prove that.