I've been thinking about this story for a while now. It's one that constantly comes to mind whenever I write about public lands, and especially when those lands inevitably come under attack by oil, gas, and housing developers who'd sooner destroy those conserved areas.
Also when I begin talking about the politicians who hate the public owns something that collectively benefits everyone. Hello, Utah Attorney General Reyes and Governor Spencer Cox.
Personally, I pay to use my state's public lands. Through my purchase of my hunting and fishing licenses, and my hunting permits, as well as my hunting and fishing supplies (through the Pittman-Robertson Act), my money directly funds public land and animal conservation, and also promotes healthier ecosystems for all to use.
I do so freely, and I would gladly direct more of my money toward those endeavors, as I hope that my children will enjoy the same places far into the future. And I believe those funds tie me to the land in ways that I just don't see happening when folks just use these public lands for free, i.e. the hikers, campers, off-roaders, dirt bikers, ATV and UTV'rs, and snowmobilers.
I know, it's sacrilege coming from the executive editor of a powersport website. But it's true. We, as riders and drivers, simply don't do enough to support the lands we use and love.
Despite the efforts of groups like Tread Lightly! and countless others, trash is littered everywhere. Groups outside of hunters and anglers don't fight for animal migration corridors or habitat renewal. People get angry about federal and state trail closures, but don't actually doing anything to maintain access, improve those trails, or to police their own from doing stupid shit. And then, you get conflicts arising between the supposedly disparate groups of outdoor recreators.
A license for all public lands use, like the ones that hunters and anglers already purchase, would tie these groups to the land far more than they do now. And they'd feel a sense of profound urgency when they're required to fight tooth and nail to protect it. It would, for lack of a better phrase, rally the troops, as paying for something's use adds a layer of ownership that isn't otherwise there when you just get it for free.
Imagine if you had to pay to go hiking or snowmobiling in the backcountry. Would you stand for folks littering on the trails or going off-trail and destroying the habitat you pay to see? Absolutely not. Would you stand for federal or state land managers closing trails just because they feel like it, or because a group of riders can't stop defacing protected edifices? Again, you wouldn't, because you paid for this access and you want your experience to be pristine.
I, personally, wouldn't impose something extremely expensive. I'm a benevolent overlord. But public lands are public for a reason and they should be enjoyed by all, not just the rich, wealthy, or well-off. My hunting and fishing combination license costs only $45 for the entire year. Something along those lines wouldn't be a bad place to start, and it would help to fund critically underfunded arms of the government that maintain these public lands.
It would also, hopefully, break down the barriers between the disparate groups of recreators.
Go to Reddit or any specific recreation forum online and you'll find one group bitchin' about another. There's constant infighting amongst those who recreate on public land, whether it be the hunters and anglers, the dirt bikers and UTV'rs, the off-roaders and hikers, and whoever else. Everyone has an opinion about the other group, yet the only ones who actually pay anything to the states, whether it's through their licenses or through the taxes collected through the Pittman-Roberston Act, are the hunters and anglers.
They shouldn't have to shoulder the burden of conservation of wild places, but still have to listen to other groups attempt to modify or remove their access to those places when those others don't also pay their fair share.
But more than that, we also shouldn't be fighting amongst ourselves. We shouldn't be taking our Op-Eds to rail against a group who enjoys the outdoors differently than we do. Our enemy isn't the hunter, the dirt biker, the off-roader, the UTV'r, the hiker, the camper, or the snowmobiler.
It's the housing developer, the mineral or gas extractors, and/or the politicians that aim to strip our rights away. It's those in charge of 'Project 2025', the federal lawsuit Utah is waging (along with a handful of other states), the Ambler Road proponents in Alaska, and others. Getting everyone to pay into public lands ties them to those lands, so they'll pay attention to the fights happening across the country, and those who fight the forces back. Folks like Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, to be specific.
I want to ensure that my children have access to the same public lands that I enjoy, as well as their children, and their children's children. And I wish to see more people who love public lands not only pay into protecting them, but fight as hard as hunters and anglers have been for decades to protect them. Because, I don't know if you know this, but the devil is at the doorstep, and those who wish to do away with public lands have never been more bold in their crusade against them.
It's time everyone steps up and fights to save them, and that starts with buying a license to use them.
