I don't know why I am wasting time writing on this subject again as it has been played out on this forum repeatedly, but bearman, it appears you are reading a 12th grade essay at about a 3rd grade level.
The point of the landowner compensation tags is just that, "compensation." That is the point, the rancher is providing habitat for wildlife, but at a cost to the rancher. This cost, for example, is the reduction of crops such as third crop alfalfa to wildlife grazing. So, the state compensates the landowner for his loss and the wildlife continues to use the habitat.
The loses can be significant. A large herd of deer can significantly reduce the "testing" score of an alfalfa crop by eating the tender leaves of the plants and leaving the tougher stocks. This significantly reduces the value of the crop. So, in order to try and fairly compensate the landowners, NDOW allows the tags to be aplied to the entire unit in which the land lies so that the tags can be sold for a higher value. That is the way the system has to work. You get one deer tag for every 50 deer you have. Shooting one dder out of 50 off your property isn't going to do squat, its the financial compensation that makes the program go.
The alternative is to not compensate the landowner and have a situation where the landowner says fine, screw it, I want the animals off my property. It is then the states responsibility to remove them with depredation hunts, etc. That gets pretty ugly, as was the case in Knot Creek a few years back.
Nevada's system is working and it is working well. Its only opposition seems to come from jealous sportsman who think the lanowner is laughing all the way to the bank. I can assure you, that is seldomly the case.
In ID, in a lot of cases, the state actually pays the landowner money for compensation out of its own funds and it can cost the department a lot of money. At least in NV, all the compensation is coming from some Californian with too much money and is not costing NDOW much of anything.