Make sure to pack your wallet the next time you visit a National Forest. The Department of the Interior (DOI) and a few congressmen are attempting to charge access fees on all federal lands, which means pretty soon, you might have to fork over some cash before hitting the trails.

Currently, it doesn’t cost a thing to visit most of America’s National Forests, Wildlife Refuges, and other public lands, since they are publicly owned and funded by tax dollars. However, Congress established an experimental Recreation Fee program back in 1996 in order to address a backlog of maintenance issues on public lands. The Rec Fee Demo Program gave all federal land agencies the power to charge entrance fees. Over the last several years, the National Park Service has collected more than $867 million under the Rec Fee Demo Program. That money has funded a variety of projects, from trail maintenance to hotel construction. In Everglades National Park, for instance, Rec Fee money was used to purchase additional land and restore water flow to the entire ecosystem.

Under the experimental program, each individual agency has the power to charge fees at its own discretion. Outside of the National Park Service, most federal land agencies have chosen not to charge entrance fees. So in most cases, it doesn’t cost you a penny (other than in taxes) to access a National Forest, a Bureau of Land Management area, or a U.S. Fish and Wildlife area.

The current Rec Fee Demo Program will expire in September, however, and the DOI wants to replace it with the “America the Beautiful” pass-an annual interagency pass that will connect all federal land agencies under one collection umbrella. The America the Beautiful pass will most likely cost $85 and will be required in order to access any federal lands. Many outdoor enthusiasts feel that America the Beautiful access fees are elitist and exclusionary.

“Access fees will make it even harder for middle- and lower-income Americans to visit public lands,” says Melissa Walker, president of the Georgia chapter of Wilderness Watch. “It reinforces the stereotype of wealthy whites being the only ones able to enjoy our public lands.”

Considering that a portion of our tax dollars already goes to maintaining federal lands, asking users to shell out an entrance fee to use land they already pay for in taxes seems unfair, says Walker. It’s like charging a toll on a tax-funded highway.

While it may be unfair, it’s not unprecedented. Many National Parks already charge entrance fees and most people have no problem forking over $20 a carload to see Old Faithful. So what’s wrong with extending the fees to cover the entire federal land system?

“The Park Service is a different animal,” says Robert Funkhouser of the Colorado-based No Fee Coalition. “People expect certain amenities when visiting a Park. It’s a destination resort. This isn’t the case with Forest Service Land or BLM land. People expect these lands to be largely undeveloped.”

The fear among many outdoor enthusiasts is that the interagency pass will open Forest Service land and BLM areas to the commercialization that runs rampant in the National Park System. Critics say that these visitor centers, souvenir shops, paved roads, and hotels contribute to the overall Disneyland feel of many National Parks. But in a congressional address last April, Lynn Scarlett, the assistant secretary for policy, management and budget for the DOI, said the public wants this kind of commercialization. According to Scarlett, many federal land visitors, “don’t distinguish among federal land management agencies, and many expect to find the same amenities typically provided at National Parks.”

Bob Miller, public affairs officer for the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, says the DOI might be right. “Camping has dropped off in the Smoky Mountains. Our campsites don’t always have showers. They don’t have Internet connections. Believe it or not, people want those things now.”

The amenities that the DOI wants to provide reach beyond the standard visitor center and paved roads. In one pilot program, 25 Forest Service campsites currently provide high-speed Internet access. If the program is a success, that number is certain to grow.

These recent developments beg the question: what do federal lands users really want? Do we want the visitor centers and Internet kiosks that the “America the Beautiful” pass will provide, or do we want to contain the development within the National Park system and allow our National Forests to remain primitive?

At this stage in the bill-becomes-a-law process, the decision is largely up to the American public, who must decide whether or not it wants an Internet café at every trailhead. Though the Senate turned down the access fee bill, the House is likely to debate its version of the access fee bill (H.R. 3283) sometime this month.

-Graham Averill