RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
I am originally from NH, that absurd place where you can hunt all privately or publicly owned land, that is not posted against hunting or tresspassing, without landowner permission. The tradition there is pro-sportsman, and hunting has not been viewed as a money-making enterprise by landowners. Things are changing there now, with more land being posted every year. I line in Indiana now,where the traditionis 180 degrees different. No access without permission, and nobody really wants to give permissionin the part of the state thatI live.
NH does have a substantial amount of federal land though. The White Mountain National Forest is huge.
Anyway, my point relates to federal land. I agree that the states should manage their game animals, even on federal lands.I don't agree that I should pay more than a resident to hunt federal land in a given state. The animalI shoot doesn't cost the state any more to manage than the one a resident shoots. The primaryreasons for higher out-of-state fees are to raise more money and to limit access. I see no justification for a state limiting access to federal lands. Absurb, I know.