I have been a wildlife watching enthusiast since I was a tiny little kid. When I was barely old enough to watch for alligators, my father would take me into the backcountry of Everglades National Park and teach me to appreciate the critters that thrived in the wildlands. We visited all the improved trails, boardwalks, and facilities dozens of times. We frequently day hiked on our own in the pine flatwoods and tropical hammocks. We made week-long camping trips canoeing through the mangrove forests and the sawgrass prairies. All the while, we were surrounded by a menagerie of incredible animals that coexisted in the natural environment.

For as long as I can remember, I have endured listening to the sportsman's creed; hunters and anglers emphatically explain that wildlife watching is only possible because the hunters and anglers banded together and saved the animals from disappearing. The fees levied on hunters and anglers underwrite the conservation programs intended to keep wildlife from going extinct. Without hunters, there would be no wildlife, or so we are led to believe.

One of the most common ideas put forth is the claim that taxes levied on hunters and anglers pay for all the land acquired to become designated as Wildlife "Management" Areas, a narcissistic euphemism, or U.S. Wildlife "Refuges", a perverse euphemism to consider while waterfowl and game hunts are being waged upon our nation's "refuges". In this great country, with its massive domestic economy, citizens are told that we have been wholly dependent on a harvest tradition to underwrite the preservation of the publicly owned landscapes that wildlife can make use of.

This myth becomes most egregious and self-serving when the wildlife-watching public is described as free-loading off the efforts of those who pay to support the system of management and, here's another handy euphemism, "conservation". Politicians callously claim that participants entering managed areas for wildlife watching, exercise, or casual entertainment are not paying their fair share. Politicians want to increase their tax revenues to offset the impact of watching some birds or walking through the woods. Hunters and Anglers are methodically groomed to actually believe the public is taking advantage of them. A quick survey of any hunting social media discussions of the subject will confirm the vehemence targeted at those who enter managed areas without paying for the right to leave with a bloodied caucus.

Here are some examples. In the public forum Community Area of UtahWildlife.net the user Goose wrote "...It’s about time freeloaders quit riding on hunters dollars..." which elicited this reply from user one4fishing "... no one that doesn’t hunt realizes that license fees pay for those areas..." who goes on to write "...We as sportsmen need to do a better job of helping non consumptive users understand that we foot the bill for conservation. ..." The certitude with which these claims are made is appreciable, but are any of these ideas actually true?

Clarity can be found by looking at data published by governmental agencies. For example, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources publishes reports of its revenue and expenses. So, I took a look at the UWR Fiscal Year 2025 financial information report to establish some perspective on the facts.

These annual reports are very informative. They helpfully explain where the revenue comes from and how it is spent. I believe the division operates in good faith, but I noted a few statements that warrant skepticism.

For example, the subtitle of the report states "The DWR's main revenue source is from license and permit sales", which could be accurate, or not, depending on how you parse the meaning of the word "Main". Elsewhere in the descriptive paragraphs, the following is boldly stated as an article of fact: "The majority of DWR's revenue is generated from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses and permits." This statement is false.

Let's look at these two statements and compare them to the data published in the same report. The license and permit fee revenue received by the DWR is represented by the Restricted Fund and the Sportsman Fund. The first accounts for 38.68% of the UWR budget, and the second amounts to 4.78%, for a grand total of 43.47%.

43.47% is not the majority of the budget, but this bold statement validates those who will repeat the myth without question. To be fair, the 38.68% attributed to the Restricted Fund is the largest single, or perhaps "main" category. So, for what it's worth, there's that.

An important qualifier needs to be acknowledged and should be understood by those who do not hunt or fish. This 43.47% of the budget can only be used to further the management of game species. In Utah, there are several dozen animal species that people get to kill as game. The $65,321,776 collected from license and permit fees can only be spent on programs that directly effect the game populations that hunters and anglers want to kill. If any one of the hundreds of other animal or plant species that live in Utah receive a corollary benefit, that is just a lucky happen chance.

In other words, the Red-tailed Hawk you might be marveling at is not being protected by the license and permit fees hunters and anglers have contributed. The Hawk's meager protections are funded by other sources of revenue. Keep that in mind the next time you encounter the myth.

The UWR revenue also includes a large category of Federal Funds primarily sourced from excise taxation on the sale of firearms, ammunition, archery equipment, fishing tackle, and motorboat fuel. The Federal funds amount to $56,796,766 or 37.79% of the budget.

When added to the Restricted Fund and the Sportsman Fund, the total appears to be $122,118,542 or 81.26% of the UWR budget. That's an impressive percentage, and this is why most hunters and anglers believe they are footing the bill for everyone else.

Upon further consideration, it becomes apparent that the Federal Funds, collected as excise taxes established by the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act, are not exclusively paid by hunters and anglers. In fact, federal reports suggest that 78% of the federal excise tax collected is paid by users who do not hunt or fish.

Approximately 75% of this federal excise revenue is collected from firearm and ammunition sales, with the majority of those items purchased by target-range shooters, self-defense practitioners, or end-times hoarders. It turns out that hunters don't use as nearly many bullets as folks who frequent the range to empty a few clips for fun and excitement.

The remaining portion of tax revenue is attributed to anglers. Fishing tackle sales are self-defining but relatively low in overall value, while the tax on motorboat fuel is predominantly paid by pleasure boaters who are just cruising the waterways rather than fishing. Note that commercial fishermen are exempt from the fuel tax.

The 22% of the Federal Fund paid by hunters and anglers equates to $12,495,289, while the 78% of the Federal Fund paid by the general population equates to $44,301,477.

So, if you subdivide the Federal Funds appropriately, you have a more accurate representation of how much the hunters and anglers are paying into the system.

The hunters and anglers are directly contributing $77,817,065 or 51.78% of the UWR revenue.

The Utah UWR $20,401,947 General Fund is sourced from state income tax. While a small percentage of citizens hunt and fish, and contribute to this fund, this is money collected from everybody and meant to be spent to serve everybody. The $2.45 million Dedicated Fund is sourced from Utah sales tax and is a tiny portion of the $13.79 billion Utah sales tax collected in 2024.

Together, these general-purpose Utah taxes amount to $22,851,947 or 15.21% of the UWR revenue. When you add this to the $44,301,477 portion of the Federal Fund paid by the average citizen you realize a substantial figure of $67,153,424, which is 44.69% of the total revenue.

The hunters and anglers directly contribute about 52 percent of the UWR revenue, but do so in exchange for the right to take something of tangible value from the environment and bring it home as a prize. The general public contributes 44 percent for the privilege of leaving only footprints and taking only pictures.

The remaining 4 percent of the revenue is paid by sources that vary year to year. There might be a donation to a special project made by the Audubon Society. There might be another project funded by a contribution from the Hunters of America. It varies too much to generalize.

What about the land? I have been told time and time again that Hunters paid for the purchase of the Wildlife Management Areas. A quick look at the revenue report shows that only 1.1% of revenue is devoted to acquiring WMA land. That $1,650,000 pales in comparison to the $77,817,065 paid by hunters and anglers or the $67,153,424 paid by the general public. Furthermore, the Land Acquisition Fund is sourced from donations or grants from State and Federal funds, not from hunting or fishing licenses or permits.

The facts are that the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources collects and spends most of its money to ensure that hunters and anglers don't eradicate a species and cause extinction. Its primary expense is making sure hunters and anglers do not run out of living creatures to kill. That's it.

Finger-pointing at wildlife watchers, hikers, joggers, bicyclists, kayakers, canoeists, and dirt road drivers with tha accusation that we need to pay a fair share is nothing more than a money grab by a bureaucratic behemoth that has been assembled to prevent a complete loss of subjects to kill. History has shown us that, left unchecked, hunters and anglers have brought the species they covet to the brink of extinction time and time again. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources exists to protect the hunters and anglers from the misdeeds of hunters and anglers.

Innocent bystanders who rejoice at the chance to watch wildlife living free in a wild habitat are not the problem, yet we do contribute significant funds to ensure there is some wildlife left for us to be enraptured with.

Those of us who merely visit a wildlife management area with an interest in viewing wildlife or experiencing a natural habitat have paid for the privilege many times over. The hunters and anglers have been killing everyone's shared wildlife resource while we have been subsidizing the consumption. It is time for hunters and anglers to stop spreading the myth that they have been the solution to the problem.

Hunters and anglers have disrupted the natural order by using advanced machinery and sophisticated tools to prey on the most vital examples of our wildlife population. They leverage an overwhelming technical advantage while seeking the prizes they refer to as trophies. These people are systematically weakening the stock by leaving the less vital members to serve as the progenitors of the future's wildlife population.

The hunters and anglers operate in direct contradiction to the rules of nature, whereby weakened individuals were preferentially targeted by subsistence predators and culled from the population in a system where the most vital members survived to strengthen the overall health of subsequent generations.

The bureaucracy of the UWR substitutes selection biased science, man-made quotas, and dubious trial-and-error methodologies described as "wildlife management" to offset the hunters' and anglers' disruption of the ancient laws of nature.

Layer upon layer of administrators and well meaning scientists are funded to distract us from the obvious fact: wildlife does not need to be managed. The collective of flora and fauna was doing a pretty good before certain parties tried to take everything they good get their hands on. If wildlife is left unmolested, wildlife finds a way to make the best of its circumstance.

Would the general population need all of the UWR services if the animals were simply left to live without the impacts of recreational slaughter?

Habitat protection is valued by all wildlife enthusiasts. Yes, it costs money to protect habitat from degradation but only a small portion of UWR's annual budget is devoted to that purpose.

Science that recognizes debilitating externalities, such as pollution or habitat encroachment, is important to all wildlife enthusiasts. The general population is paying a good amount of money in the hopes that such science is put to good use.

Politicians in Utah, who have been goaded on by hunters and anglers, have made recent attempts to exact extra taxing revenue from no-impact and low-impact visitors of wildlife management areas. These money grabs are abhorrent. Why should a bird watcher pay extra to support a bloated bureaucracy dedicated to keeping hunters and anglers from rendering their blood sports extinct?

Further taxation for something we already pay for, that primarily supports an activity most of us do not want to participate in, feels like a knife being shoved in our guts and then twisted just to see how much we are willing to take before voicing disagreement. If someone thinks there should be a birdwatchers tax just to make it fair for "everyone", I will disagree.