Many reasons, here goes a few.

Because residents have been putting in time and money into their own state. There are many small organizations, from the state that fund projects for wildlilfe projects, which in return support the State and Federal resources. Every state has them. Whether it is the Nevada Bighorns Unlimited who continue to raise money for wildlife projects, or the Arizona Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, they're made up almost entirely by residents(I'm sure there are a few non-res.). The benefits made from these organizations now will be reaped of them, due to the much more limited access. These are "Residents" putting into the system and doing the work, not "Nonresidents". If the Fed's want to manage the states resources, then rid of the State G & F dept., otherwise, let them do their job.

Residents should also have the advantage of the tags system for game management. Majority of the resident hunters do not hunt out-of-state. They hunt in the same places every-year(as long as the outfitters don't get them). With that being said, the majority of hunters will pay more and many will not want to pay 2-3 times the amount to be "equal" to non-resident tags. Many people hunt because it saves them money in the long run. The rise would have to happen to keep the same amount of income. So the decrease of resident hunters, especially meat-hunters, would mean less deer. Maybe the state would then increase the non-resident permits. But the vast majority of non-residents do NOT shoot anything but bucks. Does anybody already see the deer population on the increase? And guess who will be liable to the lawsuits, from the insurance agencies and lobbyist? You guessed it, the State Wildlife and Parks. And all of this for a some greedy out-of-state hunters. Give me a break! Why would the Wildlife and Park do that, theyd be stupid? Taulman found a loophole on the Fed. land, with no more ambitions than filling his pockets full.

And some think that not making residents and non-residents hunters equal is unfair to non-residents? No, making it equal would be unfair to majority of all residents. Remember, majority of hunters don't hunt out of state. Think about it. Majority of resident hunters will have to pay more for hunting their own land and have a lesser chance at getting a tag, and you justify it by saying they are more likely to get a tag in another state for less money, when they don't even want the tag.

Discrimination between residents and non-residents should continue to happen. Complaining about not getting enough tags or being too expensive is ridiculous. But that is my opinion, everybody has their own. Discrimination is everywhere. Maybe next time, rifle hunters will sue the state for not having as good of seasons as the bowhunters. Maybe bowhunters will sue the state for having units where as rifle hunters do not. Maybe a rifle hunter will sue Iowa for not being able to use a rifle. This is all discrimination. Where does it stop. Everywhere you look is discrimination. And lawsuits are down both paths of the road. There's is always going to be some Lawful Loophole, that people like Taulman will find, to meet their needs, which in his case $$$. Hunting Regulations are a right given to the state. The state manages the land a resource, whether it be Federal, Public, or Private. So let them do their job.