It is important to note that he was on state-owned land. Utah has always been stingy about access to the land it owns. The federally owned land is in Utah is far more prevalent and wide open for recreation, as is much of the city and county-owned land around Utah. But the state of Utah has always considered their land to be a monetization target, not free recreation.

My first question was why doesn't Utah do what other states do, and issue permits specifically for such use rather than require non-hunters and non-fishers to buy hunting and fishing licenses?

The article addresses that. It turns out it's because Utah is engaging in a grift:

> Because while federal funds are not attached to general recreation permits, hunting license fees are matched with federal dollars though the Pittman-Robertson Act, and fishing license fees are matched in the same way through the Dingell-Johnson Act.