A fee can be charged to visitors entering an area “. . . that provides significant opportunities for outdoor recreation.” - see page 11 of the legislation.

Two examples of controversial issues some believe may or may not be authorized by this provision are: (1) charging a fee for entrance into a high impact recreational area (HIRA), e.g. access to the Mt. Lemmon area in the Coronado National Forest; and (2) requiring the purchase of a pass such as the Adventure Pass in four national forests in California - see http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sanbernardino/ap/welcome.shtml.

There are really two separate issues here. One is whether the restrictions and requirements in the current law are being honored by the agencies. The other is whether they are the right restrictions and requirements in the first place or whether they should be re-thought in any new legislation.
There are three types of fees in the current law: Standard Amenity Fees (day-use), Expanded Amenity Fees (campgrounds, cabins); and Special Recreation Permit Fees (a vaguely defined category that has become a catchall for anything that doesn't fit in one of the other two categories.) Each of these really needs to be considered on its own. I will start new topics under this forum addressing each, and start the ball rolling.

It is possible this topic name should be a separate forum within the overall category - "Authority for charging . . . " After all, one of the issues many of us readily relate to, topically, is where fees are charged.

I tried to address this by starting three discussion threads under this topic: one each on day use, campground, and permit fees. If you think there's a better way to organize the conversation please do. I just think it's important to separate out how the current law is being implemented vs how a successor law should be written.

Notwithstanding the poll above, what about trail maintenance? Isn't there a cost to the Forest Service, i.e., sufficient staff, equipment. Yes, there are volunteers, but I understand few too many, and, don't they require oversight by the Forest Service - staff? Don't think fees can be used for increasing Forest Service staff, but couldn't they be used to outsource trail maintenance? If so, isn't that a good use of fees collected?

In my lifetime, the FS has almost completely reversed its role vis-a-vis the public. They used to be facilitators of outdoor recreation (however limited), but not they function mainly as gatekeepers, keeping people away from the forests (their own forests!), and determined to charge them a fee anytime they do manage to get in. It's outrageous. As to all the costs supposedly associated with maintaining "ameneties," I suggest looking at all the money spent on collecting money, justifying collecting money, bulldozing existing trailheads, and the like.

I wouldn't have a problem with "user fees", but I disagree with many of the management practices and evolving polices of the FS. It's tough to swallow when the FS asks for increased fees when I see so much waste in their budget.

I believe in taking care of our resources, but in my neck of the woods each generation of FS employees (and management) appear to be more concerned for the forests than the people that may use them. They don't seem to comprehend the fact that 'we the people' have hired those employees to watch over our forests. No common ground, or balance on use and conservation. IMHO.