Honest question.
So given the option of paying a minuscule fee for the right to take game and fish resources, knowing your minuscule fee contributes to conservation OR not paying the fee, having no conservation department, and allowing people to do as they please, some of you would honestly choose the second option?
I'm not going to sit here and act like a hunting license is a big burden. But your scenario is a false dichotomy. If hunting licenses went away tomorrow, they'd find another way to pay your salary. The government likes to use all these arbitrary partitions, but they can move money around with the stroke of a pen.
