Guys .. please help me understand your point, because I have read your statements and I'm not seeing your side.

As I understand it, the decision here is to not add any new permits, but free up the opportunity at 1 of the limited licenses. Why is that bad? I live in Massachusetts, pay huge amounts in Federal taxes, served 4 years in the Marine Corps, and if I want to hunt on Federal land in another state and I'm willing to pay more for the same license as you, pay habitat improvement fees and drop money on the travel and expenses to take part in a hunt on land ALL Americans have the right to enjoy .. why is that bad?

Because you live in Arizona you get special privileges? Bullcrap ... then the huge money the government raises in taxes from the NorthEast and in California should be only spent in our states???? Of course not .. you benefit in support of your schools and roads from the money I and my Northeast buddies pay into the national coffers... those federal lands are maintained with money that comes out of every pocket .. including mine. If you want to horde your hunting privileges on a per state basis you may as well become the People's Republic of Arizona in my eyes. I hate to break the news to you, but hunting is not a right, but a privilege. It depends on the ability of the land to sustain a huntable population of animals and requires careful management .. and that means sometimes people don't get to hunt no matter how bad they want. This information that only Arizonians pay for the habitat improvements alone is wrong .. we ALL pay. Just now, it appears that finally ALL Americans get an equal and fair shot at the same hunting privileges ... and if some resident has to "sit out" a year because his hunting brother gets lucky enough to draw one of the few coveted tags .. then welcome to the real world.