A new law in Utah might surprise even seasoned RVers. As of May 2025, anyone over 18 venturing onto certain Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) for hiking, biking, trail running or wildlife viewing needs a valid hunting or fishing license.
If you’re RVing into the Beehive State planning to explore its renowned trails, you want to pay attention.
What changed (and when)
• Effective date: May 7, 2025.
• Who’s affected: All non‑commercial users age 18+ entering WMAs in Davis, Salt Lake, Utah and Weber counties.
• Activities covered: Non‑consumptive uses like hiking, biking, trail running, birdwatching and photography now technically require a hunting or fishing license on WMAs.
While WMAs remain open to public recreation, the twist is that their upkeep has historically been funded by dollars from hunters and anglers. This law simply aligns all users with the cost of managing these specialized wildlife areas.
Why licenses
• Equitable contribution: Non‑consumptive trail users were benefiting from habitat conservation financed solely by hunting and fishing fees. Lawmakers deemed it only fair that everyone accessing WMAs pitch in.
• Federal matching funds: Hunting dollars are matched under the Pittman‑Robertson Act; fishing dollars under the Dingell‑Johnson Act. More licenses sold means more federal grants for habitat and species conservation. These benefits extend beyond WMAs themselves.
Clarifying land use
WMAs are designated primarily for wildlife conservation and hunting/fishing. The new rule helps differentiate WMAs from multi‑use public lands, reducing conflicts over trail building and resource damage.
Where the money goes
Every cent collected from hunting and fishing licenses stays within Utah’s Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) to:
• Conserve and protect wildlife: Funding habitat restoration, research and endangered species protection.
• Acquire and improve habitat: Purchasing new land parcels and maintaining access roads and trails on WMAs.
• Support the Habitat Council: This body allocates millions annually to enhance and preserve critical wildlife areas.
DWR’s financial overview underscores that restricted license revenues cannot be diverted elsewhere. 100% is reinvested in the division’s conservation mission.
Why RVers should care
Popular RV campgrounds often sit near WMAs, like the Bonneville Shoreline Trail by Salt Lake City’s foothills. Even a quick morning hike or mountain‑bike loop could require a license.
Game wardens patrol WMAs. Getting stopped without a valid license can mean citations and/or disruptions to your adventures.
By purchasing a license, you help sustain the very ecosystems and wildlife that make Utah a bucket‑list destination for RV travelers and outdoor enthusiasts alike.
Get your license
Utah offers a range of license options online or through retailers:
• Resident 1‑Year Fishing: $40
• Resident 1‑Year Hunting: $40
• Resident Combination (Hunt + Fish): $44
• Nonresident 1‑Year Fishing: $120
• Nonresident 1‑Year Hunting: $144
• Nonresident Combination: $190
Grab your license through the Utah DWR website or via their official app. A credit/debit card is required for online purchases. Once purchased, your digital license is valid for 365 days (or multi‑year if you opt in).
RELATED
- Amazing experience at Utah’s Dark Sky RV Campground
- What to see, what to do, and where to stay while RVing Canyonlands, Utah’s largest national park
- High desert RVing in beautiful Capitol Reef National Park, Utah
- Fremont Indian State Park – AMAZING Utah Camping off I-70!
RVT1218b
Thank you, Gail! On the surface, I applaud this creative and valid extension to support funding of these areas. More specifically, the 3-day license for $19 and the 7-day license for $30 do not seem egregious. Although I do suspect some sticker shock if one is told one must pay $19 on top of their camping fee in order to run trails during their 3-day stay, or only run inside the campground. Interesting, unexpected, but, ultimately, also reasonable. Have a great day and safe travels!
As a Utah resident, not in favor of this. How are we supposed to know free trails from license required trails.
I don’t know about Utah, but in my home state of Minnesota, Wildlife Management Areas are clearly marked by border signage and at each entry point.
Or, if you want to support wild lands traditionally only paid for by sports men and women, just buy a license anyway and the state gets a two-fer…Federal funds also flow in. Win-Win for your state!
Location… Are you in one of the four counties that require a license?
Neal, I agree! As a Minnesota resident I have often wondered why other users of our state WMAs don’t have to contribute to the many wildlife projects, which are both game AND non-game oriented. Land and stream restoration benefits the entire ecosystem that all users enjoy, and matching Federal funds, which come from rather large (double digit) federal excise taxes on guns, ammunition, archery equipment, fishing equipment, etc. are a bonus to the state.
Good for Utah! I need to send this article to my Represenatative in MN to start the process here!
Making you pay to enjoy God’s land, pathetic. Is this Illinois?? The state is not broke.
Isn’t God’s land it’s Utah’s and the wildlife that lives there’s land, and people don’t know how to use and maintain Utah’s land appropriately so this hold their hand technique is required
So you don’t like freedom of travel. It’s in the bill of rights.
Depending on the scope of the land that falls within this classification….this could be entirely fair or completely insane and totalitarian. Imagine getting a ticket for hiking to the hill behind your house.
The story here says plainly what land this refers to and that would be a WMA or Wildlife management area, these are wintering grounds etc for groups of animals not hiking biking and running trails for passersby to use at their leisure.
Signs signs everywhere signs.
Laaaaaaaaaame. They aren’t shooting a gun or collecting a carcass. Simply recreating [bleeped] lame
You need to do more research on the broad focus of WMA’s. Lots of the work done in these areas is NON-game oriented. So, if you love bird watching, you are a benefactor. If you are a hiker and thrill at seeing any form of wildlife, you are a benefactor. If you are really serious about getting out into nature for any reason, you benefit. So, help by having more $$$ flow to your state Dept that manages these lands and it’s better for all users.
Clearly just another way our state has found to generate revenue and take advantage of residents that live and pay Utah state taxes already. If a resident wants to go on a hike, they shouldn’t have to pay for it by purchasing a hunting or fishing license. The state generates plenty of money from hunting and fishing already, they are going too far, taking advantage of utah residents.
No you just don’t want to do your part, these lands have been designated specifically not for what you just stated as they are WMA’s so inherently the added use case for them is deserving of extra fees etc by those users, Any Utah State Park entry fees is $25+ for a day and these are State Parks, why would WMA access for 365 days for $44 be a big deal
Exactly!!!
Wow what a disgusting joke
Yes just like people using the land for exactly what it’s inherently not for!
Government overreach
While I appreciate the fact that this money goes towards conservation efforts, I also feel this law is confusing and not equimenical in its allocations as it states. Hikers, bikers, and equestrians do not harvest resources as hunters and fishers do. Therefore, I feel it would be more fair to have a reduced rate for such participants.
It is also is very confusing as some areas contain trails partly in and out of these areas. And people from out of state are not likely to be aware of which is what, let alone those who live there.
Many hunters and fisherman don’t harvest resources either. And even if they do, that is a management initiative to keep populations in balance with habitat. It is a service to the area.
The “harvest” by a non-hunter/fisher is a beautiful experience in nature that is NOT free to support & maintain.
I’ve commented before on the NPS cuts articles that everyone screams, but they don’t want any increased fees. ‘Gimme for free’ vs ‘pay my share’ to use is apparently the motto here. 🙄
Let’s see if I get this right, so, if all I want to do is take a little walk and take some pictures, I have to pay for a “license” to do that? Because I’m using…what resources????
Trails and land that has programs in place to manage the entire landscape you are enjoying.
The thing that upsets me is as a non resident I would need to pay $120. For a license I might use for a week or two. While the locals who would be more likely to do a lot more hiking and whatever are paying way less. Did I mention $120. each. States are making it less and less appealing to visit them
Most trails maintain themselves. We don’t need state workers maintaining a trail people walk on daily. This is another way to tax everyone wanting to hike or visit these areas. People in Utah (like me) are losing our our freedom to visit public land for free. This puts a burden on a family simply wanting to visit the beauty of certain areas throughout Utah and having the treat of game wardens policing your every hike to see if you are paying your share. Time we vote for better law makers in Utah. So many trails are not maintained by the state and do just fine year to year. This is a money generator, a tax on everyone not wanting to stay home to play video games. Feels like a punishment.
“Most trails maintain themselves”…really? I have yet to see a trail pick up the garbage/trash left behind by inconsiderate users.
Also, it’s not just a trail. Do users put on horse blinders so they only see the path in front of them, or are they looking out over beautiful fields and forests and lakes that are managed and cost money to maintain?
This is going to create a lot of confusion. Are these areas going to be posted? Or, are there up to date maps available for the public? Or, most likely, they’ll expect us to shoulder the burden without being provided information. If a person is not harvesting the land, or affecting wildlife, then they should not need to pay a fee to be on such land….especially if they’ve already paid a fee to enjoy an area i.e. for camping. Here’s a final question, if I go fishing and my friend or family (who don’t fish) want to come along, do they have to have a license too?
Contributing to recreational features seems fine. A minimum $120 for visitors is silly. But mostly wildlife areas are for the wildlife. We should all support them whether we visit or not, so general taxes.
What’s with the Wyoming photo of the Grand Tetons? Isn’t this article about Utah?
The party of small government continues to create more government overreach and takes Federal handouts
What Federal “handout” is there here? The Federal funds involved are a specific excise taxation on hunting & fishing equipment set up decades ago by Congress to support wildlife oriented initiatives. These are not general Federal funds…these are targeted funds and have been for a long time. That’s why Utah wisely chose the need for a hunting or fishing license as the ticket vs a trails pass…it allows the use of these targeted matching Federal funds.
I am so sick of rights taken and sold back as licenses.
Hunters and fishermen have to pay to use designated wma. there’s designated areas for hiking camping biking makes sense. hikers and stuff gotta pay to be there if hunters and fishermen do. I’ve been harassed for hunting on designated hunting land by hikers when there’s designated trails for hiking. it’s very annoying when u have to deal with hikers in designated hunting areas when it’s used for HUNTING/FISHING not HIKING/BIKING. they’re not taking anything away, they’re making it right and fair. if they want to be there and use the same land as hunters and fishermen have to pay use hikers and bikers should have to pay as well. they can’t just benefit off what the hunters and fishermen have to pay for
Starting in January 2026, anyone tubing, boating, kayaking, canoeing, or paddle boards on Oregon rivers will have to purchase a permit to do so or be fined. Tubing single will not be subject to permit, but if two or more tubes are tethered together, they are considered a “boat” with the new law and require a permit. The fines are steep, starting at $1500. The permits range in price from a one-day permit to a two-year permit.
Just curious…does Oregon already require boats, canoes, kayaks, etc. to be registered and licensed already and this is a fee on top of that?
I don’t know about canoes or kayaks, but boats have to be registered. with the new law they have to be registered, plus pay the permit. At least that’s the understanding. Also, I was wrong about the fine. It starts at $150. minimum. The permits are to raise revenue for invasive species.
This is a real issue mishandled. I suspect the forest service is taking what the lawmakers would give them.
To create and maintain access to public lands, and offset the impact of access by the public, wildlife departments DO need resources to do so. I don’t think that is up for debate.
What is up for debate is where those funds come from, and who should be paying them. Many of comments focus on the degree of proportionality of the use I.e. hiking ≠ hunting. Shooting an animal with a camera ≠ a gun. This has merit, and is the typical logic of most states. What is lacking, is that all residents of a state, not just the hunters or hikers are responsible for its upkeep.
My goodness! @Mikal is getting lots of thumbs-down reactions to his logical, accurate explanations. These are wildlife MANAGEMENT areas, and as such, require manpower and time. As the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources explain, “WMAs are primarily funded by the sales of Utah hunting, fishing and combination licenses and by federal excise taxes (which are paid on hunting and fishing equipment) — typically, state taxes do not pay for them. All license sales go toward conservation in Utah, so having a current license is a way to support wildlife conservation, land acquisition, management and habitat restoration at your favorite WMA and statewide.”
Someone has to pay for those areas.
Nope, I don’t hunt or fish and don’t remember the last time I’ve seen a game warden on the trail.