This thread is a good example of how institutionalized the hunting community has become. Somehow, some of you are arguing that price increases, however they fall, and regardless of the absence of reasoning or justification for them, are OK because other states have done it, establishing persuasive authority to do so. Additionally, some of you made the comment that this was an example of market economics at play. Neither are or should be true. Tags are licenses issued by the state. The state owns the monopoly on issuing a license to you to hunt, which is a very different thing than when a state or private entity is a market participant. Additionally, states are independent actors, and are not subject to, nor required to acknowledge arbitrary state taxes imposed in different jurisdictions. There is no need to assert a tax or price increase on a license because a state can, or because another state has gotten away with it. Think about what you are saying here. This is blind support of the government imposing pricing increases on state generated licenses, at will. The whole idea of hunting and fishing is to allow the average citizen to enjoy the outdoors, which is also something that is included in your Fed and State taxes already (with all obvious limitations).
I'll say it again, we need the next generation to have the opportunity to get involved in the outdoors. When I was 19, there is no way I could have afforded a $4-$800 big game tag, in addition to licensing fees, etc. Resident fees have also gone up in several states, which also presents a barrier to entry for lower income folks or for younger folks. What we should be demanding is that our elected officials DO BETTER, and not constantly fall back on asking that WE give more. We, as a community, do more than almost any other genre of public interest (see all the folks on here who donate time and $$ to conservation efforts, etc.).
Sorry for the thread jacking rant here, but this idea that the game departments ALWAYS need more of our money, and should ALWAYS be able to arbitrarily raise prices is absurd, illogical, and exclusionary. Again, provide a SOLUTION. If that is limiting NR tag #'s so that the residents of a state, like Idaho, have better odds and opportunity, I Am OK with that, assuming the solution is reasonable. If $$ is the issue, DO BETTER with what you have, and then offer other opportunities to hunters, at a reasonable cost, that could offset the perceived losses in income due to limitations of tag #'s or non-resident fees. This could include Wolf hunts, Mountain Lion Hunts, Coyote Hunts, Turkey, Waterfowl, Uppland Game, etc. Those additional other opportunities would invite folks to spend money in the state, provide hunting opportunities, manage predators (in some cases), and offset the $$ lost by accomplishing your initial goal ... and would do so by INCREASING hunting opportunities at a reasonable cost.
I say all this very respectfully, as I am not interested in flaming fellow hunters, but we all need to wake up and stop supporting unreasonable license and tag fees. Rather, let's support each other, and stand up for ALL members of our community so that we can enjoy hunting for generations to come.