An Act to amend 20.370 (9) (hv) and 23.47 (2); to create 23.176 and 23.47 (1) (e) of the statutes; Relating to: hiking permits, granting rule-making authority, and making an appropriation. (FE)
SB960 would create a new state hiking permit requirement for people traveling by foot on groomed hiking trails on state-owned land, except in vehicle admission areas and certain other limited situations. Under the bill, a person generally could not hike on those trails without a permit, would have to carry proof of the permit while hiking, and would have to show it to DNR staff, wardens, or other law enforcement officers on demand. The permit would not authorize hiking where it is otherwise prohibited, and it would not be required when hiking is incidental to another authorized activity, when the person is covered by a state trail pass, or when the hiking occurs as part of an organized and authorized event.
The bill directs the Department of Natural Resources to issue hiking permits to applicants who pay the required fees, sets the permit as valid for the calendar year, and allows DNR to issue permits directly, use nonemployee agents, or contract for a statewide automated issuing system. It also establishes fee amounts of $20 for adults, $10 for children age 12 or older, and no fee for children under 12, plus a 75-cent issuing fee for permits issued to people age 12 or older. The bill creates related authority for DNR to regulate agents and to use an electronic system and conservation card framework for storing permit information.
In terms of state law, SB960 would add a new statutory section governing hiking permits and would amend existing provisions on DNR’s automated issuing system and electronic retrieval of information to include hiking permits alongside other approvals and safety certificates. It also creates a new appropriation-related account mechanism for amounts deducted to pay contractors operating the automated system. The practical effect would be to expand DNR’s regulatory and administrative role over recreational hiking on state-owned land and to impose a new permit fee structure on affected hikers.
The available legislative record shows no committee transcript discussion and no recorded votes, so there is little direct evidence of debate or negotiated changes in the materials provided. The bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 on March 23, 2026. Based on the text alone, the measure appears to have been framed as a user-fee and access-control proposal rather than a broad conservation restriction, but the absence of recorded discussion makes it difficult to identify broader support or opposition from the official record.
The main points of contention likely would have centered on whether Wisconsin should require permits for ordinary hiking on groomed state trails, the cost burden on families and casual users, and the administrative complexity of enforcement and permit issuance. Supporters would likely emphasize trail management, funding, and the ability to track authorized use, while opponents would likely object to adding a new fee and permit requirement for a common recreational activity on public land.
SB960 would create s. 23.176 of the Wisconsin Statutes, establishing a new hiking permit regime for groomed trails on state-owned land and amending related DNR administrative provisions in ss. 20.370 and 23.47. It would require DNR to issue permits, set fees, authorize agents and automated issuance, and integrate hiking permits into the department’s electronic records and conservation card system. The bill would directly affect hikers, DNR administrators, permit agents, and contractors operating the statewide issuing system.
The bill’s available record suggests limited documented debate, with no committee transcripts or votes included and no recorded floor support or opposition in the materials provided. The measure did not advance and failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, indicating it did not secure final legislative approval. From the text, it appears to have been a policy proposal focused on access control and fee collection rather than a broadly popular recreation measure.
The likely controversy is the new requirement that people obtain a permit simply to walk on groomed hiking trails on state-owned land, which could be viewed as a barrier to public access and a new cost for routine recreation. Another likely point of contention is enforcement, since hikers would have to carry proof and present it on demand, and DNR would need to administer permits, agents, and an automated system. Supporters would likely favor the fee structure and administrative controls, while critics would likely focus on affordability, convenience, and whether the state should regulate hiking in this way.