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

PBramble

Let's Eat
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
1,949
Reaction score
2,298
Location
OKC
And Stitt does everything he can to pick away at that "clout" . . . and start fights where none need to happen. I wish he'd do a better job of working with them instead of against them.
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.
 

Newbie

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
309
Reaction score
420
Location
Edmond
I'm not saying Stitt is being racist, but I'm pretty sure there are 5 categories of race according to www.census.gov

American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
White
I'm pretty sure I qualified my response by saying that mixing isn't a new race, though the racial classification has been bastardized to further divide people along the slimmest of lines. And the census is simply retarded. 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 idiot that thinks Oklahoma should bow down anytime an indian shouts "mUh tRiBez!"
 

RickN

Eye Bleach Salesman
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
20,524
Reaction score
20,554
Location
Edmond
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.
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.
 

SoonerP226

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
9,339
Reaction score
5,906
Location
Norman
Lets do some quick math here. The state made $38,000,000.00 from the tribes on discounted licenses; $72.00 license package for $2.00.
Now right off the bat I am getting "fell off the back of the truck" vibe.

$38M/$2 per license; so roughly 19,000,000 tribal licenses were paid for and issued. I am assuming that has been sense conception. Now lets remove the sweetheart deal.

19,000,000 licenses at the regular rate of $72.00 comes to 1,368,000,000.00 now to be fair lets take out that $38M and we come to...

1 BILLION, 330 Million dollars and no cents in lost profits that would otherwise go to wildlife conservation in our state.

Your brain cells would have to be racist against intelligence to not see why Stitt has made this decision.
Where in the world did you get those numbers? Those aren’t even close to the numbers published by ODWC.
 

PBramble

Let's Eat
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
1,949
Reaction score
2,298
Location
OKC
Lets do some quick math here. The state made $38,000,000.00 from the tribes on discounted licenses; $72.00 license package for $2.00.
Now right off the bat I am getting "fell off the back of the truck" vibe.

$38M/$2 per license; so roughly 19,000,000 tribal licenses were paid for and issued. I am assuming that has been sense conception. Now lets remove the sweetheart deal.

19,000,000 licenses at the regular rate of $72.00 comes to 1,368,000,000.00 now to be fair lets take out that $38M and we come to...

1 BILLION, 330 Million dollars and no cents in lost profits that would otherwise go to wildlife conservation in our state.

Your brain cells would have to be racist against intelligence to not see why Stitt has made this decision.
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.
 

SoonerP226

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
9,339
Reaction score
5,906
Location
Norman
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.
 

SoonerP226

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
9,339
Reaction score
5,906
Location
Norman
The lawyers would cost more than they'd recoup. As far as the termination thing, not renewing it would be the same though, right?
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.
 

KOPBET

F. J. B. Let's Go Brandon
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
10,417
Reaction score
3,630
Location
Zihuatanejo
I admit I'm ignorant on the matter. Would someone kindly explain why the tribes should get steeply discounted (or discounted at all) licenses?
 

Matt Giroux

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Mar 29, 2020
Messages
700
Reaction score
1,041
Location
Yukon
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.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom