Who Would Pay for Vermont’s Proposed “Public Access License”?
An explainer for Vermont readers
The Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department (VFWD) is exploring a new “public access license” that non-consumptive users—think hikers, birders, paddlers and mountain bikers—would buy to recreate on VFWD-managed lands.
Department leaders have floated a $5 day pass and a $20 annual pass and say any program would be developed through rulemaking, with a target start no earlier than 2027, according to an Associated Press report.
Why the department says it’s needed
VFWD says its long-standing funding model is under strain: license revenue is flat while costs and responsibilities have grown. In its FY2026 budget presentation to lawmakers, the department outlined rising salary and benefit costs and described the need to “restructure” finances. The FY26 plan totals roughly $31.3 million, with funding drawn from three pillars—federal apportionments, the State General Fund, and licenses/special funds—each on the order of $9–$10 million, according to the Vermont Legislative Joint Fiscal Office.
A major near-term pressure point is a fall-off in federal Pittman-Robertson (P-R) wildlife funds that come from excise taxes on firearms and ammunition. Certified U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service apportionments show Vermont’s total FY2025 P-R allocation is down substantially from recent peaks. (USFWS publishes the official certificates and tables each year.)
What lands are we talking about
VFWD manages 100+ Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs). The department says WMA management is funded by a mix of hunting/fishing license sales, federal P-R aid, and state sources. By design, these areas are open to a range of uses beyond hunting and fishing, including wildlife viewing and hiking, as detailed in an ArcGIS StoryMap about the WMAs.
Separately, Vermont State Parks are run by the Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation (FPR) and already charge user fees (for example, an individual season day-use pass is listed at $40 and a separate vehicle pass is also offered on the Vermont State Parks website). Any VFWD “access license” would be a new product for WMA/department lands, not a change to existing State Park fees.
How other states approach this
Montana requires a low-cost “Conservation License” (generally $8 for residents, $10 for nonresidents) to access most state fish & wildlife sites and WMAs. State Parks are excluded, according to Montana FWP.
Delaware uses a vehicle “Conservation Access Pass” for state wildlife areas. DNREC Documents show annual resident passes are $32.50, and a pass is included at no additional charge with hunting licenses.
North Carolina has proposed a “Conservation Access Pass” for those without hunting or fishing licenses; Audubon North Carolina reports conservation groups there are asking how revenues would be used, whether nongame species would benefit, and how enforcement would work.
These examples illustrate three big design choices: who must hold the credential (person vs. vehicle), where it applies (WMAs vs. parks), and how revenue is earmarked.
Key funding facts Vermonters should know
VFWD’s FY2026 request reflects three roughly similar revenue pillars: about $10M federal, $9.38M General Fund, and just over $10M licenses/special funds. That means all taxpayers—hunters and non-hunters—already support about one-third of the department through the General Fund, alongside federal apportionments and license-linked money, as detailed on the Citizen Portal.
Federal P-R funds are volatile. USFWS’s certified FY2025 tables show a sizable year-over-year decrease in Vermont’s wildlife restoration apportionment compared with recent highs, reflecting changes in the national excise-tax pool.
A legal question Vermonters are already asking
Vermont’s landowner liability law is a cornerstone of trail access on private lands. The Vermont Legislature statute’s purpose (12 V.S.A. Chapter 203) is to encourage landowners to allow public recreation “for no consideration,” establishing limited duties of care when no fee is charged. Some stakeholders have asked whether a statewide “access license” could be construed as “consideration” and, if so, whether it might affect private landowner protections where public trails cross private property. Lawmakers would need to address how any fee interacts with this law.
How this would interact with existing Vermont fees
Today, State Parks (FPR) sell seasonal access products, while WMAs (VFWD) do not charge general entry fees. A VFWD “public access license” would add a new pay point alongside the existing State Parks pass—potentially creating two different credentials for two different state land systems—unless agencies pursue an integrated approach.
Questions policymakers will likely consider
Scope & coverage. Would the pass apply only on VFWD WMAs, or more broadly? How would mixed-ownership trail corridors be handled? (Examples in other states, like Montana FWP, draw lines between WMAs and state parks.)
Who holds the pass. Person-based (like Montana FWP) or vehicle-based (like Delaware)? Each has different enforcement and equity implications.
Earmarking. Will revenues be legally dedicated to non-game conservation, access infrastructure, and trail maintenance, or deposited into general department operations? (Audubon North Carolina’s public comments show this is a central concern.)
Coordination with State Parks. Could Vermont create a single, cross-agency pass to reduce confusion for residents, combining with Vermont State Parks products?
Interaction with landowner protections. What statutory clarifications are needed to preserve the current liability framework (per Vermont Legislature) for private landowners who host public trails?
How much money could it raise?
VFWD has not published a revenue estimate for Vermont, and actual yield would depend on price, participation, and exemptions (e.g., whether hunters/anglers are automatically covered). For ballpark context only, Montana’s FWP resident price point is $8 and is broadly required on fish & wildlife sites; Delaware’s higher price uses a vehicle pass and bundles it with hunting licenses. Vermont’s proposed $20 annual (person-based) price would sit between these approaches.
What supporters and skeptics are likely to say
Supporters may argue the fee aligns payment with use, diversifies revenue during federal downturns, and recognizes that department work now spans far beyond game management. (VFWD’s budget documents, shared via the Vermont Legislative Joint Fiscal Office, highlight both the broadened conservation mission and cost pressures.)
Skeptics may ask whether non-consumptive users are already “paying” via the General Fund share; whether a second credential alongside the State Parks pass is confusing; how the money would be earmarked (a concern noted by Audubon North Carolina); and how to protect private-land trail access.
What happens next
According to the Associated Press, VFWD anticipates beginning any formal rulemaking in early winter 2026, with a potential start as early as January 2027, subject to public input and oversight. Between now and then, expect legislative briefings on department finances, stakeholder testimony from recreation and landowner groups, and discussion about whether to integrate any new license with existing State Parks products and how to harmonize the program with Vermont’s landowner liability law.