Fair enough, I get that distinction on the leftover “resident” tags, these are not the initially allocated NR tags. So really its no issue keeping them in R pool, at least at first. But perhaps at some cutoff point, those still become available to all, if unclaimed as season approaches.
You also, and always do, respect current law which allocates certain percentages to each group. I don’t know if I interpret that as you “agreeing” with the law, or not advocating against that allocation in the future, which I believe you probably might, but thats your right. I know you respect and follow what it is today.
Regarding allowing R to apply for NR tags at NR prices makes me think that perhaps you ultimately think it would be fine or possibly preferable if all tags could be sold to R so long as budget was maintained. Again, not trying to put words in your mouth if that’s not so (of course correct me if needed) but I think a stable, reasonable NR participation should be maintained, period, for other communal, cultural, conservation model reasons, what-have you - not just replaced with higher paying R. Of course “Reasonable” can and will be debated by reasonable people.
I was not aware (or hadn’t thought of) the complexities of R and NR applying together. I think it’s unfortunate and should be fixed as another way to eliminate some more of the us -vs - them aspect of things.