Voices: Whether you’re recreating, hunting or angling, we all share stewardship responsibilities

Last year, recreationists were caught off guard by a new law that requires a valid hunting or fishing license in order to legally access State Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs). As someone who lives and breathes both the outdoor recreation and hunting and angling communities, I supported the intent of last year’s legislation.

At the same time, I understand why many recreationists felt blindsided by it.

For those who have hiked, biked or explored WMAs for years, encountering a sudden official state sign requiring the purchase of a hunting or fishing license, without clear explanation, would understandably feel frustrating and even unfair. Being asked to pay for an activity you don’t participate in, simply to access places you’ve always enjoyed, can be confusing on the surface without the proper context.

That concern is now driving proposed legislation in the 2026 session — HB30 and HB0018 — which would fully repeal the license requirement and the conservation funding generated by it, while HB30 replaces the requirement with an optional donation and an educational component. While I respect the desire to reduce conflict and improve public understanding of WMAs, I disagree with the premise that recreational users of these lands should be exempt from sharing in their stewardship.

WMAs exist because of sustained investment, and hunters and anglers have long shouldered that responsibility. If we value these landscapes and the wildlife they support, all who benefit from them should have a financial stake in their future.

A key distinction between WMAs and federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands and U.S. National Forest (USFS) lands is that while we think of all of these designations as “public lands,” they have very different management objectives and origins.

BLM and USFS lands in Utah largely came into federal possession via conquest and operate under a multiple use mandate, meaning that their respective management agencies are required to effectively balance uses like extraction, timber-harvesting, grazing and recreation as priorities in the best interest of those who own and fund their management through tax dollars (i.e. the American people) while ensuring the conservation of our natural resources.

WMAs, however, are state-owned lands purchased by the Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) and managed primarily with funds generated through hunting/fishing license and permit sales, as well as excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, archery equipment and fishing tackle. There is no multiple use mandate on WMAs. Rather, the number one management objective of WMA’s, unlike BLM and USFS lands, is to conserve critical habitat for wildlife. The properties would not have been acquired by the DWR and public access would not be permitted if not for this goal and the funding mechanism facilitated by hunting and fishing. Recreational access for the general public is a positive, but very much fringe benefit when compared with the driving purpose of WMAs. In some cases, excessive recreation can actually be counterproductive to the primary objective of WMAs, which is why we often see closures in these areas during wintering and calving/fawning seasons to protect wildlife when in its most vulnerable state.

We tend to segment outdoor recreational use as “non-consumptive” and “consumptive.” The reality is, if we are out there, we are having an impact on the landscape and displacing wildlife. This is especially true on these intentionally selected, acquired lands that hold a high wildlife value. As development pressures inevitably continue, all of us in the outdoor community have a shared responsibility to offset our own impacts and keep wild places wild. While there are limiting factors for wildlife populations that are outside of our control, there are certainly factors within our control — critical habitat conservation being at the very center.

Should non-hunters and non-anglers that use WMAs be required to help hunters and anglers with footing the bill for wildlife? I think so.

Is there room for a discussion between the hunting/angling and outdoor recreation community on agreeable improvements to the existing law? Probably.

Do we need to do a better job at educating the general public on the role hunting and angling play in wildlife conservation and why WMAs exist in the first place? Absolutely.

Conservation is only getting more expensive. If we value access, healthy wildlife populations and the future of these lands, we must also be willing to invest in them together.

Caitlin Curry is an avid hunter, trail runner and mountain biker that lives in Sandy. She is an active conservationist and public lands advocate that serves as the Vice Chair of the Utah Chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers.

The Salt Lake Tribune is committed to creating a space where Utahns can share ideas, perspectives and solutions that move our state forward. We rely on your insight to do this. Find out how to share your opinion here, and email us at voices@sltrib.com.