I either agree with, or am open to trying all of these things 1-16, but In my opinion #17 could be a problem. I don’t like the idea of limiting people to fewer or even one species to focus hunting. I think that could cause less people to to be “bought in” and invested in the conservation of the rest. Maybe this is a pessimistic view but I’m picturing people only applying for elk, for example and then having no desire to spend money on deer or sheep conservation. Maybe you could even see people lobbying to have their tag dollars only go towards the conservation of that specific species.17. Idaho forces people to pick one of the Big 3, or deer/elk/pronghorn. Utah restricts residents (and formerly restricted non-residents) to one of their Once-In-A-Lifetime species and one of the deer/elk/pronghorn options. Those have increased odds for both residents and non-residents in Idaho and for Utah residents. Might be worth considering in other states.