A plan that would require purchasing a permit before entering three of Oregon’s most popular wilderness areas has received a largely negative response.

More than 13,700 comments were submitted on a proposal to charge $4 to $11 per day to enter the Three Sisters, Mount Jefferson and Mount Washington wilderness areas beginning in 2020.

The comments, which came from across the country, echo the idea that while action is needed to combat overcrowding and garbage on wilderness trails, the proposal is too costly, restrictive and possibly illegal.

“There is something amiss when an American citizen has to pay a fee to hike on their lands, which are really our birthright, not a commodity to be ‘sold,'" said George Nickus, executive director of Wilderness Watch.

The Montana-based advocacy group marshaled more than 10,000 comments opposing the proposal by having people submit a pre-written form letter.

“If they get away with charging a fee to go for a hike in these three wilderness areas, it will result in similar proposals elsewhere,” Nickus said.

Forest Service officials said they'll use all the comments to shape a final decision. They pointed out that public comments already played a role in limiting the scope of the plan since its original proposal.

“I wouldn’t say the response was surprising — fees are rarely popular,” said Matt Peterson, who led the project for the U.S. Forest Service. “We appreciate everyone that sent in suggestions. Public comments have been important to this entire process.”

The deadline to submit comments is January 10. Comments can be emailed to WillametteRecFeeComments@usda.gov.

Detailed breakdown:New hiking permits for Three Sisters, Mount Jefferson proposed for $4 to $11 per day

Focus on cost:Backpacking in Three Sisters, Mount Jefferson gets expensive under Forest Service proposal

What’s the plan, and where is it coming from?

The Forest Service has been working for three years on a plan to limit crowds in the three wilderness areas, which includes 450,000 acres of Oregon’s most scenic backcountry.

Population growth in Central Oregon and the Willamette Valley has led to a spike in visitors, bringing increased garbage, human poop and damage to sensitive alpine regions.

In May, the Forest Service finalized a “limited entry permit system” that will begin in 2020. Under the system, each wilderness trailhead will have a quota of overnight and day-use permits people will need to enter.

For example, at popular Marion Lake Trailhead in the Mount Jefferson Wilderness, there will be 10 overnight group permits and 40 day-use permits available.

Nineteen of the most popular trailheads will require a permit for day-hiking while all 79 trailheads will require one for overnight use.

That quota system was the first part of the plan, and it will be implemented either way starting in 2020.

What are people commenting on now?

The second phase of the plan — currently being debated — is deciding how much the permits will cost and how people will get them.

The Forest Service wants to use the permit fees for education, trail maintenance and hiring additional rangers to enforce the new limits.

They say the benefits include more solitude, better trails and a better experience in the wild. They cited other limited entry systems — Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and Washington's Enchantment Basin — as evidence it will work in the long run.

A similar system is also in place at Oregon's Pamelia Lake and Obsidian Trail.

Basis for the plan:In the 1990s, this Oregon wilderness was overrun. They saved it with limited entry

But the proposed prices can get high

The proposed fees break down this way:

- $5 per person, per night for an overnight group permit, plus a $6 processing fee.

- $3 per person, plus a $1 processing fee, for day-use at 19 of the most popular trailheads.

- No fee is required for those 12 years and under, but they would still need a permit.

Many commenters noted that while it sounds cheap, the cost adds up in a hurry.

For a family of four, with two kids over 13 years old, a three-night backpacking trip would cost $66.

“Let’s say it’s really hot out and I wanted to take my family of five — all kids over 12 years old — for a short afternoon hike and swim to Doris Lake,” wrote Chris Jensen of Bend. For this short hike, located just outside Bend, the cost would reach $16.

“These additional fees and regulations could lessen the public's support for wilderness areas,” Jensen said.

A number of people — including the Pacific Crest Trail Association — suggested a price cap that would limit the cost.

“A price cap that occurs after the third night would be helpful, and a price cap for day-use when a family exceeds six people would be helpful,” wrote Dan Shuholm.

Perhaps the most frequent critique was that tax dollars already pay for public lands and that the new system constituted a new tax.

“Please consider not double-billing the public and stop pissing off those who have voted to support you in the past,” wrote Derrick Smithwood.

Tepid support and novel ideas

The comments did include plenty of support for a program that limits crowds, and even support for the permit system itself.

But many thought the permits should be free, or much cheaper.

“The Forest Service has used its ever-growing budget for logging, livestock grazing, fire-fighting, and other programs, while spending a pittance on wilderness stewardship,” said Nickus. “That’s what needs to change."

On a smaller scale, many users suggested simply limiting parking space at trailheads or charging more for parking. That would limit crowds without the bother of a complex permit system, they said.

Many others suggested a senior discount or “locals only” permit system so nearby residents could go hiking on less crowded midweek days.

“I totally support the permit system because so many of these trails are overrun,” wrote Maureen Sweeney. “Would it be possible to have a special permit (for locals and senior citizens) that costs $20, for use Monday through Thursday? Otherwise it will be burdensome to do this every week.”

Finally, many comments mentioned free passes for those who do volunteer work for a certain number of hours on trails.

Get permits through a vendor?

Another bone of contention in the comments was over how the permits will be distributed.

Much discussion centered around how many permits people can reserve in advance and how many should be kept for spontaneous hikes.

The Forest Service hasn’t made a proposal on that, but another area of disagreement was whether long-distance hikers on the Pacific Crest Trail should get an exemption to pass through without a permit.

Some thought they should, while others said it would be unfair to locals.

Damage to local economy?

Many others worried about impact on the local economy.

Central Oregon has a booming tourism economy, and some worried the new fees would discourage people from visiting.

“I am a 67-year-old hiker and I hope to enjoy some hiking and backpacking in Oregon, but I will not bring my economic activity if you implement such regressive fees,” wrote Ken Wall of Missoula, Montana.

A number of people decried the “vendor fee” added to the permit cost by Recreation.Gov, which is owned and operated by Booz Allen Hamilton.

To run the large public lands website, the private corporation adds $1 to $6 to all transactions. That inflates the permit price with money that won’t go toward the wilderness objectives.

Could the fees actually be illegal?

Many groups, including Wilderness Watch, said the fees could be illegal under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, which prohibits fees under a number of circumstances.

“This fee proposal cites authority to implement fees under FLREA’s definition of ‘special recreational use,’” wrote comments from the Oregon-based Mazamas and the Access Fund. “However, the average users are hikers, climbers and trail runners and are not considered a ‘special recreational use.’”

“We request the Forest Service clarify how the proposed Fee Plan adheres to FLREA regulations.”

The argument could provide grounds for a lawsuit blocking the plan.

Peterson, with the Forest Service, said he was confident of the plan’s legal grounds.

“We followed the same model of other fee systems, in wilderness areas, currently in place,” Peterson said, listing a number of places where recreation fees are imposed as part of a limited entry permit system. “We’re following systems that use the same provision and haven’t had legal problems.”

Forest Service uses comments to shape policy

As evidence that they had used public comments to narrow the scope of the plan, Peterson pointed out the following evidence.

- We started with including limited entry at five wilderness areas for overnight use. Now it’s only three.

- We started with limited entry for day-use at 42 trailheads. Now it’s only 19.

- We started with permits required through the end of October. Now it’s only until the last Friday of September.

- It was the public that gave us the idea for a volunteer pass.

- We are making permits available both in advance for reservation, and on a shorter timeline (a few days before a trip starts), since comments have asked for both options.

Read the comments

The Statesman Journal requested the public comments under the Freedom of Information Act. The Forest Service responded by making all the comments public, and anyone can read 12,000 of the 13,700 comments submitted at this website: https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//ReadingRoom?Project=50578

For this story, the Statesman Journal reviewed more than 100 non-form-letter comments and looked at common themes, but there are an almost endless number of concepts.

Zach Urness has been an outdoors reporter, photographer and videographer in Oregon for 11 years. To support his work,subscribe to the Statesman Journal. Urness can be reached at zurness@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 399-6801. Find him on Twitter at @ZachsORoutdoors.