MANY recreationalists bristle at the prospect of recreation fees on our national forests. Why should we pay to hike on "our" land? They are outraged, however, when they encounter clear-cuts near timberline on these same lands. But if they could choose between recreation fees and timber cutting, might fees then be accepted as the lesser of two evils?

The reason for clear-cuts is, as you might expect, money. The Forest Service budget increases with every timber sale. Specifically, with every board-foot that it sells, the Forest Service generates income from Congress and lumber companies. The more it sells, the bigger its budget. Recreation and aesthetic interests, however, return few dollars to the Forest Service budget. How can they compete with timber when decisions are made by budget-maximizing managers?

Congress' answer has been the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. It states that Forest Service management should give equal weight to "outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes." In practice, it means that creative Forest Service planners suddenly discover that recreation and environmental benefits are produced by logging. For example, new roads into pristine wilderness areas improve access while clear-cuts provide increased "edge" habitat for forest animals. Congressional multiple-use mandates are thus trumped by budgetary incentives.

So multiple use fails because budgetary pressures for logging and grazing need not compete with revenue from recreation. Recreation fees can level the playing field and guarantee that non-timber values are considered. Revenues from biking, hiking, and camping in the national forests can provide monetary incentives for land managers to consider non-timber values. If they do not consider such values, they will sacrifice income. And as timber shows, income speaks.

The Forest Service estimates that the market value of national forest recreation is over $5 billion per year. A more modest estimate by forest economist Randal O'Toole, using a recreation fee average of only $3 per day, is $1 billion per year. Even so, O'Toole estimates that such recreation fees would outweigh timber receipts on 80 percent of the national forests. So recreation can compete. With fees, eight of ten national forests, those ill-suited for commercial timber production, would see little timber cutting. And even on the truly productive forests, cutting would likely be more sensitive as managers sought to maintain some recreation income.

Fees would come from day permits and annual passes. Enforcement would occur by making permits visible, either on vehicles or a ski-lift type tag. Similar methods work well with fishing licenses, in national forest campgrounds, and in Washington State Sno-Parks.

Equity is a concern. But if the poor were asked which free goods and services they would most like, would hiking and camping make the top ten? When considered relative to outdoor equipment and transportation costs, fees fade to insignificance.

But the benefits of such fees would be substantial. Timber cutting on our national forests should occur only when timber values exceed those values lost to logging. Fees would help ensure this result. Much less would be cut, and that which was cut would likely be more sensitive to aesthetic and recreation values. We would also have a rational means for evaluating recreation - timber trade-offs.

This would also change the incentives faced by private forest managers. When our national forests give away recreation, private managers cannot compete. But when national forests charge fees, private land may open up to recreation, also for a fee. Private landowners, who currently can only profit from timber sales, would have an alternative source of revenue and increased reasons to act with sensitivity toward the land.

Such private sector incentives are important because much private land has non-timber value. Recreation fees encourage landowners to recognize such value and preserve their lands. And by reducing the cut from marginal timber sites on our national forests, we will foster more careful management of private commercial forests, most of which are biologically better suited for timber production.

Recreation on public lands is similar to timbering or livestock grazing in that each use affects other opportunities. There is a cost measured in other uses foregone. This "opportunity cost" of using the national forests for recreation is often some foregone logging or grazing. Without recreation fees, it is no contest. Logging and grazing revenues win. With fees, logging will face the opportunity costs of lost recreation income.

While the Forest Service has a multiple-use mandate, it faces a dominant-use incentive. True multiple use implies multiple incentives. Recreation fees will help to level the playing field and protect our national forests for the uses we most value.