I'm glad we have some numbers to work with now and that it is obvious that nonresidents are not paying 80% of MT budget. Nonresidents do pay 70% of MT license revenue, which from the link mentioned roughly equals $28,069,338, MT residents pay 12,029,717 for a toal licensing revenue of $40,099,055. Of MT's total budget of $70,438,867 NR's contribute 39.8% thruogh license fee's. I think trying to break the numbers down into anything beyond license fee's contibuted by NR hunters is futile as the extra fee's are generated through taxes paid by both the hunting and nonhunting public. Maybe NR's could come close to 50%, but that is open to debate.
What total percent of the Fish & Game budget do nonresidents contribute in other states, or all states? Obviuosly the numbers will be skewed as some states don't provide the opprtunities or quality of hunting and are undesirable to hunt.
Personally the cost of a Combination License of 640?, which I believe includes an upland game bird and fishing license is very cheap. Especially considering that in Montana, there is really no need to hire an outfitter as we still have decent landowners that will allow access and huge amounts of public land. I guess the way I see it is that if it cost me 500 dollars to hunt as a resident, I wouldn't bat an eye at the cost. I am not rich by any means, but it is what I love to do. If I tryed to hunt several states a year, yes, the prices for the licenses would get very steep, but that is my and your porogative. The prices are what they are and if I couldn't afford to hunt several states I wouldn't whine about it.
I agree hunting is heading in the direction that caters only to the rich, but that is not because of license fee's charged by the state. It seem's that when you pay several thousands of dollars in trespass and outfitting fee's or when you can only get a high quality tag through and auction, is the real culprit to blame.