156 
taxpayer’s vote in the political process, and the individual’s taxes 
constitute the allocation of the value or cost of the goods and sery- 
ices. Theoretically, the majority will be satisfied with the results of 
their own voting recommendation. 
Such a view is too abstract to be useful. Specifically, voters rarely 
cast their ballot solely or even remotely on the recreational policy 
stand of their candidate. Other more important issues dominate 
and the decision of the voter can be assumed to be relatively in- 
sensitive to the pressures of recreational demands. Letters to Congress- 
men and other forms of political influence are generally biased toward 
usage by the upper socioeconomic classes, in effect defeating the income 
equalization argument which ‘free access’ is designed to engender. 
Opponents of user fees also cite funds created by the practice as 
being subject to wild fluctuation in times of economic depression, 
causing havoc within the financial structure of the managing agency 
which will not be able to meet even fixed costs. This argument is not 
supported by demand figures, it should be pointed out. Park usage, 
save during times of declared war, has maintained a constant growth 
rate, independent of the state of the economy at any point in time. 
It can be concluded that the need for user fees is a relevant one, 
considering the conditions threatening our parks due to increased 
population. In our opinion, user fees, coupled with other rationing 
devices, represent valuable management tools to the administering 
authority. This compromise of the pure public good ‘free acess” 
policy carries benefits far in excess of costs and should be implemented, 
consistent with broader recreational policy goals. . 
User fee composition and other rationing devices 
The amount of user fee to be levied is a function of general policy 
and the geographic makeup of the recreational area. Section V will 
outline this relationship in more detail. Similarly, the composition of 
the fee can be adjusted to implement such policy and is limited in 
variability only by the imagination of the governing authority. 
Entrance charges per car or per person are feasible in limited access 
situations. Passes, either hand held or of the decal type, can be issued 
annually or semiannually as an alternative to the pay-as-you-go 
structure. Specific activities within the park can also bear fees. 
Differential charges, based on the time of week, the geographic origin 
of the visitor, or, perhaps, the income of the user are other alternatives. 
Across the country to date, there are some 40 combinations of these 
basic fee structures that have been implemented with varying degrees 
of success. 
Other rationing devices have found widespread use as well. In 
camping areas, Maximum stay times can be enforced. For single-day 
activities such as boating, hiking, picnicking, or just sightseeing, upper 
limits on number of persons or cars can be set, turning away all 
excess demand. In an extreme case, the transportation to an area can 
be established by the authority (train line, shuttle busses, etc.), 
thereby limiting the density of the visiting throngs. 
Vv. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PUBLIC POLICY OBJECTIVES 
As stated before, the purpose of this paper is to look at what role 
user charges should play in public recreational policy. Up to this 
