One could easily argue that hunting fees pay for wildlife and habitat management to a large extent. Those who pay have a voice. The non-consumptive users who don't pay, don't deserve a voice. On the face of it this makes some sense. My understanding is that there have been efforts in Alaska to introduce a fee structure for non-hunters who find other ways to enjoy wildlife and wild spaces. However, those efforts have been rebuffed because those who do think of wildlife strictly as game to be harvested don't really want others to pay and thereby gain a voice in management decisions. I wish I had a source for Alaskan efforts to broaden the fee structure and bring more diverse contributing voices into management decisions. 

I did locate a Colorado source to make the point that we need to find ways to allow more people who care to support game and wildlife management. Those paying fees will then have a stronger argument for gaining a voice on the BOG. I'll post the source in a reply.