RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
Mike,
Actually my point is this: It doesn't matter whether fees are increased or decreased if we don't do something to guarantee access.
Where do we spend our legislative effort? The federal government dictating to the states what they can set license prices at? Or the federal government ceasing subsidies to landowners who don't allow hunting and setting an example for the states to follow?
Now, I'm not against nonresident hunting, nor am I against private landowners receiving a REASONABLE trespass fee. I'm all for limited quotas and no over-the-counter "general" license sales for nonresidents AND residents.
Those here who think high license fees are keeping them from hunting might look at the "no hunting" signs in their own backyards. What's being done to fix that? We have them here out west now, too - thanks to the laws of "supply and demand". If you're going on a "guided" hunt, ask your outfitter if they paid anything to the private landowner(a lease)to restrict anyone else's access? If they did, you're supporting the problem.
That "problem" pushes more and more hunters who can't afford to pay for access to public land, and the pressure on the public lands are already high enough.
We need more access, not cheaper licenses. With more access, it'd be easier to make the case for lowering license fees, but not the other way around.