Rather be Hunting and Hawkeye 270, I can see where you are coming from as the state manages the wildlife in that state but, why not have a permit for U.S. national forest and BLM ground. I'm not saying that the permits should be 25 bucks for everyone but, maybe something like 375 vs 550. After all the animals the state are claiming as their own are being fed by grasses grown on the land the U.S. citizens own. Last I knew ranchers are charged to graze their cattle on forst and blm land why don't the fed's send the states a bill for feeding their animals? just a thought from another perspective.
Hawkeye summed it very well but you have to find a way to seperate the land and the animals in your mind. They are managed by very disctinct groups and funding sources.
The only connection that can be made is the land feeds the animals like you said but I just don't think its enough to connect the two so difinitively.
The reason why this makes sense is simply because if it's up to the state to manage each animal then the only way to define clear managment plans is within it's overall borders. They must ignore what land the animals live on because let's face it game crosses from private, to state, and to federal land and don't know the difference or care. If the state tried to plan for each tract of land well then they'd have to make million of managemet plans from the "BLM in the northeast corner" to "Mr Johnsons 2 acre farm".
Trying to managment wildlife from a land ownership perspective would not only be too complex to do, but would also lead to such infighting and polotical battles that nothing would ever get accomplished.
That's my view on it.