I'm from Idaho, and stationed in Kansas. I'm always an OOSER, even when I come back to Idaho, even though yes, I am privileged, by regulation, to pay resident rates for both states, I get treated as such by locals every place I've hunted since becoming a barrel chested, commie fighting vagabond.
Kansas waterfowlers often complain about OOSER's. KS has very little public land, VERY LITTLE. And the cheapest OOS permits/licenses that I've ever seen. It gets very over crowded, and here's what bugs me about you or any one else complaining about OOSER's, and the fee's they have to pay...
Its not your land. Its not your ducks or geese. Ok, ok, yes you pay taxes, maybe its state owned public land ect ect. But its not like they are literally given permission by the state to hunt your personal corn field.
How damn arrogant are you to even be so possessive over land; to think its alright to over charge a few OOSER's that can lease the fields that you can't, and in the process alienating other OOS hunters who may not be able to afford your proposed 3.77 a day.
Your right the Indians have got it figured out. Because after we STOLE Idaho, we gave them very small portions of what we plundered, and in return the fed's told them, go ahead and do what you want with it. Like Horsethief down in SW Idaho, they're hatchery trout aren't sterile. Great fishing, they charge what they want and its worth it. Much like the private land owners who have it figured out and lease their fields to the highest bidder for the weekends.
Idaho has great land, some off the best hunting, fishing and views I've ever seen after travel all over the states, and the world (everywhere except South America and Antartica), why would you want to be such of a prick as to think its all right to overcharge someone else to enjoy it, and yes, even 15-13 percent more for big game is overcharging in my opinion. Your position isn't that off "Idaho needs the revenue", its "i'm tired of competing with this group of hunters who can pay for private land, so lets just have the state charge them more to get back at them".
I'll guarantee you every peice of STATE owned public land receives some FEDERAL funding. All those public NATIONAL forests. All that BLM land. Its all federal.
Now, with my rant over, each state has legal control over its wildlife and its management with the exception of endangered species and migratory birds. Management includes hunting and subsequently its fee's. (I can provide you with legal reference to that if you need). SO yes, Idaho(government) has every legal right to follow your train of thought and be ***** to OOSERs, doesn't mean its right thing to do or that they should.
TLDR; Your angry that there are to many OOSER's and propose punishing them or limiting them by increasing OOS fee's and justify that by saying Idaho is to cheap comparatively to other states fee's and its an unreasonable to attract other hunters which support local economies. (200 hunters provide more to the general store owner, and county and municiplaity[ie, gas taxes] than the 20 who can afford your new fee's)
Edit- I take back what I said about being treated badly in KS. Kansas actually has some of the most considerate and friendly hunters I've encountered, but they still hate legitimate OOSER's.