Why are Wilderness Users Opposed to Recreation Fees?

Hikers, backpackers, and other wilderness and backcountry users feel that they are unfairly targeted by the Federal recreation fee program.

Consumptive users such as mining, ranching, and logging get Federal subsidies in the form of fees that are far below market values, or in the case of hard rock mining, non-existent. In contrast, recreational users are expected to pay nearly the full costs of maintaining trails, trailheads, as well as fee stations and the cost of hiring rangers to enforce the fee system.

At the same time, the Forest Service budget for trail construction and maintenance has been cut so that the agency expects volunteers (that's us, the recreational users) to maintain the trails!

Almost everyone understands and agrees with fees being charged for use of developed picnic areas and campgrounds, as well as for access to national parks and monuments. In these places, the fees go to support specific amenities, such as campsites, tables, restrooms, visitor centers, and ranger programs.

But paying fees to access primitive land, where the only amenities are trails and signs, runs against the grain. Everyone benefits from public lands- the watershed value alone is worth taxpayer support. In fact, one of the primary reasons for establishing the national forests was to protect watersheds. Most of the population of the western United States gets its water from public land watersheds. Other benefits of the public lands include wildlife, view protection, and open space.