Montana and Colorado's state legislatures have both passed resolutions calling for Congress to repeal the Fee Demonstration Program. Most of the arguments made by supporters are pretty unsupportable.

Kitty Benzar, of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition likens the recreation fees to "having to buy a pass to go into your house." Her analogy really only makes sense if she lives in public housing, which I doubt she does. If she did, she would see that it is in the same condition as our federal lands: pretty awful.

Without private ownership, the quality of stewardship suffers. At least recreation fees match users with those who bear the cost in a manner closer to the way that a private homeowner bears the cost of repairs to his or her own home. Ms. Benzar apparently cannot see the difference between having taxpayers pay for the upkeep of her house and paying for it herself. She apparently thinks the former is more fair.

The Colorado resolution claims that the fees amount to double taxation. But as I've written elsewhere, this isn't accurate. Recreation fees are more analogous to paying for a token or a pass to use public transportation. It matches the extra damage and costs from actual use with funds to pay for that use. To the extent that the fees do amount to double taxation, this is an argument for getting rid of the taxes that are poorly appropriated to federal lands rather than an argument for getting rid of the fees. Concerns about double taxation are answered in a more detailed form here.

While I haven't seen any recent polls about recreation fees, most polls in the past have shown positive feelings about recreation fees as shown by the table below from the Department of Interior's 2000 report. Given the disconnect between popular support for fees and the state legislators' resolutions, it would seem the legislatures have probably been captured by vocal special interests such as the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition at the expense of providing the result that their citizens demand. Alternatively, maybe Montanans and Coloradans simply have a different view of fees than the rest of the nation, but I have my doubts.

Given that recent studies done in Oregon and Washington, where fee opposition has been highest, show that even low income people who are most likely to find the fees burdensome support the fees, it seems more likely that some very vocal opponents (rather than a silent majority) are capturing the legislatures' ears. In research conducted by the University of Florida and Pennsylvania State University, found on page 54 of the Forest Service's 2002 Annual Report to Congress on Fee Demo, support for the Northwest Forest Pass, which simply charges for access to Forest Service lands in the area, was positive among low income respondents in both Oregon and Washington. Yet Oregon is in the process of considering a resolution similar to the ones passed in Colorado and Montana.

The people support recreation fees, federal lands are better off for them, and yet a vocal minority who want the rest of America's taxpayers to pay for their free lunch are getting state legislatures to sing their tune. Unfortunately, both of them are tone deaf.

Survey Location Opinions About Fees That Were Generally:Positive Negative

National Comment Cards 77% 19%
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness 87% 13%
Southern California National Forests 64% 18%
Vail Pass Winter Recreation Fee 46% 22%
Desolation Wilderness Fee Site 64-78% 22-36%
White Mountain National Forest 68-72% 15-16%
Cataract Lake Fee Area 64% 14%
Tonto National Forest 55-64% 22-26%
News Article Analysis 65% 35%
Los Angeles Times Survey (natl.) 51% 42%