Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Hobbies & Interests
Hunting & Fishing
Oklahoma Gov. Stitt won't renew hunting, fishing compacts with Cherokee, Choctaw tribes
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SoonerP226" data-source="post: 3690976" data-attributes="member: 26737"><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SoonerP226, post: 3690976, member: 26737"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
Hobbies & Interests
Hunting & Fishing
Oklahoma Gov. Stitt won't renew hunting, fishing compacts with Cherokee, Choctaw tribes
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom