We conclude that where the opportunity to enjoy a recreational activity is created or supported by a state, where there is no nexus between the activity and any fundamental right, and where by its very nature the activity can be enjoyed by only a portion of those who would enjoy it, a state may prefer its residents over the residents of other states, or condition the enjoyment of the nonresident upon such terms as it sees fit.
This came up earlier, I did some digging and found some good info in the 1978 Supreme Court decision from Baldwin v. Montana. Here's a link to the earlier posts (my contribution is near the end).
http://forum.hunting.net/asppg/tm.as...9&mpage=5&key=