New Utah Law Calls on Non-Consumptive Users to Pony Up and Help Fund Some Wildlife Management Areas

As a group, hunters and anglers traditionally have had very little problems with putting their money where their mouths are.  Or should I say, where their hearts are.

We have a penchant for the great outdoors and happily contribute to its wellbeing. Whether that be from accepting additional tax on hunting and fishing-related equipment, paying license and tag fees or something as simple as picking up a piece of trash along the trail. While on an individual basis we are certainly far from perfect, as a whole, we are a contributing force to the conservation of this country’s wild animals and the wild and remote places those animals call home. 

After being signed into law in the fall of 1937, the Pittman-Robertson Act (aka the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act) was put into place to provide adequate funding for state wildlife conservation efforts through excise taxes on firearms, ammunition and other equipment related to the pursuit of wild game.

It worked splendidly and continues to pour over one BILLION dollars into state wildlife coffers each and every year. 

But as the growth of hunting seems to have flatlined over the last couple of decades, the growth of other outdoor pursuits has exploded. Hiking, trail running and bird watching are just a few other outdoor activities that have seen exponential growth over the same period of time. As more outdoor recreation areas and Wildlife Management Areas are being utilized by a larger portion of the general public, states are now forced to look at ways to level the playing field when it comes to who they are going to tap for the bill.

As far as the state of Utah is concerned, they passed a new state law, which took effect in May of this year, that now makes it a requirement for all users over the age of 18 to have a valid hunting or fishing license to access certain Wildlife Management Areas. Focusing on the state’s most trafficked wildlife areas surrounding city centers, the state is hopeful that not only will the new measure help balance the books, but also ensure that everyone is paying their fair share.

Utah Trail Runner Stopped

The state’s new law went viral last week when a trail runner lamented about the fact he had been stopped by wildlife officials and was informed that he now was required to have a fishing or hunting license to recreate on the state land he was using south of Salt Lake City. 

In a video posted to Instagram, the runner expressed his surprise and the reactions to his post are a mixed bag. With some contending that the new law makes sense that all users pony up, others expressed disdain for having to buy a license for something they don’t do or even support. 

cougarkyle

40K followers

View more on Instagram

The thing detractors, including the runner, didn’t realize is that these Wildlife Management Areas are a very different breed of public lands. In the case of the Utah areas, these outdoor spaces are specifically designated for wildlife and fishing and hunting. They were purchased using dollars generated from license sales and have been maintained to keep those specific dollars rolling in. 

The Division of Wildlife Resources has come out and said that they are by no means forcing anyone to purchase a license, but if a user is not interested in purchasing a license for specific lands, then they ought not to access them either.

It’s not a problem of losing access but rather one of understanding what certain lands are designated for - an issue many in the state’s legislature, including the bill’s sponsor Rep. Casey Snider - is hoping this new law will clarify.  

As other outdoor interests compete for space in these wildlife management areas, Snider and many others believe they should be contributing. With some mountain bikers going as far as creating and maintaining unauthorized trails on WMAs, it's becoming painfully clear that perhaps access is being taken for granted in some circles.

Utah’s new law, the first to require hunting and fishing licenses for all, is something of an anomaly. While states like Montana require non-consumptive users to purchase special licenses not tied to hunting and fishing, many others do not require any permits unless they are hunting or fishing specifically.

But upon further inspection, Utah’s reasoning behind the decision is sound. Given the fact that federal funding is not directly correlated with general recreation permits, the state argues that they are missing out on large sums of federal cash. By tying in fishing and hunting licenses, the state opens up appropriated funding from the Pittman Robertson fund (hunting) and the Dingell-Johnson fund (fishing), which is tied directly to the number of licenses sold. By selling more hunting and fishing licenses, the state opens themselves up to additional dollars from both license sales and federal coffers.

And while the detractors may continue to plead their case that wildlife officials are restricting access, the fact remains that much like everything else in this country, we’re all expected to contribute. 

The issue of protecting these and other WMAs shouldn’t be another us vs. them social media spectacle or yet another installment of political theatre. It’s about the collective well-being of our wide open spaces. 

Lest we all be reminded that the true beneficiary should always be our state’s collective wildlife resources, not our personal interests or political leanings.