Why anonymous? To avoid hate mail.
Yes, fees are a threat, but there are much bigger threats, like unrestrained development and environmental degradation caused by autos and fossil fuels.

"It's easy to not be bothered by increases in fees when you can pay them. Many Americans can't."
I don't know about "many", but the Americans who can't afford to pay entrance fees also can't afford $75 in gas to get to and from the nearest national park. The fee itself is inconsequential in this scenario. I don't think it's the entrance fee keeping people out as much as it is the cost of gas and lodging, especially in the parks like Crater Lake where a hotel room (in a hotel tax payers spent $17 million to rebuild) goes for up to $260 a night.

And there are plenty of ways for poor folk, like myself, to avoid paying fees if they can afford the gas to get to a park: 1. Enter after the fee booth has closed or before it has opened. Exit at the same time. 2. Enter on foot. 3. Get yourself a disability and get the Golden Access card or whatever it's called now. 4. Look up the name of an employee in the park and say you're there to visit that person. These are all sneaky ways in that should be used only by the most financially bereft.

The Park Service receives more funding per acre of land than any other conservation organization in the world. The money is misallocated toward unnecessary road maintenance, new construction, and maintaining the bloated salaries of incompetent, do-nothing managers.

If you want fee-less national parks, stop using parks' toilets, roads, pay phones, ATMs, lodges, shuttles, visitor centers, soda machines, cafeterias, and the plethora of other unnecessary development that has drastically impaired and Disney-fied our national parks and prompted recent fee increases in such parks as Crater Lake and Lava Beds.

I use the campgrounds in the parks when available and sleep in cheap motels in rinkydink towns between the parks I'm visiting... Why? Because I'm worth it...! Actually the best accomodations have gone something like this:

Our scene opens at the entrance gate of a major national park...

Stranger: Welcome to Goldenrock National Park...
Me: Hey, do you know where I might locate Sally Sawtooth? She and I used to work at Grand Canyon together and I think she's working here this summer.
Stranger: Yeah I know Sally from Ranger Skills class two years ago. I know she's here -- at the northside visitor center I think, but she's off fightin' fires in the National Forest this month.
Me: Aww, man, and I travelled all this way to see her. Well, and the park too of course.
Stranger: So where were you planning on staying, at Sally's?
Me: Not sure, I was gonna figure that out when I caught up with her.
Stranger: Heck, you're welcome to crash on my sofa for a night or two. Any friend of Sally's can't be all that bad. Just meet me here when I get off at 2pm and you can follow me to my cabin.
Me: That's so cool -- thanks. See you at 2... [sound of car pulling away]

-- Jon Merryman

I've used my share of back entrances, friends' couches, etc. to get across the country and into and through parks and around various kinds of user fees. That kind of solution can only work for a demographically narrow group of people. It's also only evidence that Titanic America has different class levels on its boat. As much fun as it is to hitchhike sometimes (one of my best experiences in life was hitchhiking to Jackson and back), meet strangers, and do this sort of thing, it's: 1) still evidence of one's own privilege (it's not for everyone; I couldn't imagine large families - especially many people of color willing or able to take the same kinds of risks around regulations to visit a park - which leads to some of the absurdities surrounding people's attitudes toward immigration, but that's another matter altogether); 2) evidence of a limited range of options (I've seen relatively wealthy people do the same thing in and around parks in order to have romantic and exciting adventures - yet, the same people can still make other choices while poorer people are told they should make do). I definitely wouldn't discourage people from traveling on the cheap and being creative; that's awesome. I just hope it wouldn't blind us, though, to owning up to our own privilege and standing against class inequity in the parks (and elsewhere). User fees for public goods are just one manifestation of that; it's a regressive burden that already exacerbates a regressive class situation. And, even if I myself can find a way around it, I should not presume that what I can do implies a general rule for everyone at large (take that Kant!)

Jim Macdonald
The Magic of Yellowstone
Yellowstone Newspaper
Jim's Eclectic World

I recently got one of the new National Passes. Happy to pay $80 toward the parks. For years I've paid parking fees, etc. at climbing spots, hiking parking, etc.

The interesting thing is my new national pass doesn't work at Federal sites in Colorado (the state I'm currently visiting). 3rd party "concessioners" are operating the bulk of the National Forest sites I'm trying to visit, they know nothing about the pass, and they all want additional fees. One worker went so far as to tell me the pass only gets 50% off. I showed him the information pamphlet given to me by the Forest Service folks who sold me my pass, and he wanted nothing to do with it.

Reading through prior comments I know there's a lot of debate. I'm skipping past all of it, to ask a simple thing. Can we get an explanation of what the new pass really offers? It's vague and cloudy to say the least. The regional Forest Service offices I've called declined to give me an answer, as I identified myself as a travel writer for several magazines (which I am). What I know is simple. Sites with Forest Service Signs are declining the pass in Colorado!

I think there should be placards below the forest service signs stating, "Under New Management" to identify non-participating sites.

Looking forward to some thoughts and insights from folks here.

Thanks for taking the time to read my comment.

Rich