While I just paid well in excess of $600 for a MT big game combo tag (which I am happy and feel fortunate to have drawn for a second year), I also understand why it is the way it is. Sure, residents pay like $12 for that tag and I hunt federal land. However, despite being federal land, the support to MANAGE that federal land is STATE, not federal. Additionally, that same federal land I hunt it the only land all the local residents have to hunt.

Now, MT has a very small population compared to many states. If they charged, say, $50 for NR tags and did not limit them, so many NR would come in that the residents would be overwhelmed and not have a chance. I understand that MT has to take care of MT residents first. I am very happy they let me draw a tag and come in and enjoy the great state. I chose not to live there so I could have a better paying job and afford not jus the $600 tag but other things in life. It was a trade-off between that and the hunting/beauty of MT and I'm ok with that.

If they slashed the price but kept the same number of tags, they kill their revenue. I was told that the huge area of MT I was hunting had only 1 patrolling conservation officer -- we're talking an area bigger than many states. Apparently MT fish and game is not rolling in cash to hire tons of conservation officers, so I can see why they do what they do.