ORIGINAL: MinnFinn
If the states really wanted to increase the amount of money brought into their fish & game for their project to better manage the game, they'd lower their non-res. tags, not to the level of resident, but to a level where the average hunter could make it happen more often.
It may seem counter intuitive, but it's like lowering certain taxes that encourage more to invest in capital improvements, buy new equipment, start more businesses, etc., which results in higher total revenue to the gov't.
Nah. That's not true. A situation like that only applies if there is an unlimited supply (or relatively unlimited) of whatever is being sold (or being taxed, as in your example). When there is obviously a precise limit on supply, such as nr big gametags, then optimum revenue will be obtained by charging the highest price possible while making sure that no tags are left unsold because of price refusal...so, as long as demand remains high, the economics are pretty sound.
Now, your example may hold some water when it comes to fishing/bird-hunting and other unlimited licenses for NRs.
Let's not even go into the fact that many of these animals are found on FEDERAL land, meaning EVERY US citizen should have equal access to it....logically?
Another argument that may seem sound on the surface but underneath is very shaky. Example: If you personally owned 500 acres in MT, and yet did not live there, you STILL could not hunt there without an NR tag. You could however, hike, birdwatch, or cook out...just like federal land So, the
owner of the land is irrelevant in this scenario. It matters only where you live.