Those studies have been done - both the land issue and the wildlife value. I have copes of them.
Again, the wildlife issue is completely irrelevant to the discussion of the land. Our courts have held that the wildlife is not an attachment to the land. Thus, making this a discussion about pricing hunting opportunity is moot as it relates to the ability to maintain/manage lands.
Additionally, in every western state I know, the proceeds from license sales goes to the wildlife agency, not to the general fund. For many reasons, one big reason being that such diversion would be a violation of the rules for Pittman-Robertson funds.
You make the point that if market-based values were used, non-resident hunting is underpriced. Yes, by market-based principles it is underpriced.
Yet, a game agency is not a for-profit entity and is not charged with maximizing profits, rather covering operating costs. A wildlife agency is closer to a non-profit entity, both of which use "non-financial measurement criteria" (CPA jargon) for evaluation of their effectiveness in accomplishing their mission. To say that wildlife agencies should use market-based models to maximize revenue at a different place on the supply-demand curve is like expecting the local Food Bank to charge needy patrons for food that is passed along. Neither has a mandate to make a profit.
Now, when it comes to land management and returns, yes, market-based approaches should be applied, as land agencies are charged with maximizing the revenues for their constituent group; in the case of states, the school systems are the constituent group. It seems more relevant focus on that in the context of a thread around the topic of a political wanting to change land ownership based on a rationale of financial measurement.
