Spencer McKee: The argument for ‘pay-to-play' in outdoor recreation (and 5 key concerns that come with it)
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - Don't hate me - I'm fully aware that most outdoor recreation enthusiasts would prefer that all access is free. Gear is already expensive, so is the gas to get to the trailhead and with all of the positive benefits that outdoor recreation can bring to life, it's worth the effort to make sure that these activities are available to as many people as possible. I'm with you there. This is one reason why I've long been involved with Colorado Springs non-profit UpaDowna, whose main goal is improving access to outdoor recreation and ultimately getting more people outside. As the non-profit's chairman of the board, this is a mission statement I hold near and dear to my heart.
That said, the topic of pay-to-play in outdoor recreation is one that's drawn plenty of conversation over the years. In social media comments and public forums, those expressing opinions tend to be fairly one-sided: "don't charge for outdoor recreation, especially on public lands." What often gets overlooked is how there are actually some benefits when it comes to implementing pay-to-play, especially when done responsibly in a way that reduces access as little as possible.
Before digging into this topic, it's important to note that pay-to-play has long-existed in many ways - hunters and anglers pay a licensing fee, as do off-road users. State and national parks tend to charge an entrance fee, and it costs money to access roads like Mount Blue Sky and the popular summit-bound trailhead that's found along the way to the top. Don't forget about those camping reservations, too. Pay-to-play has been around for years, and before it gets written off as something to be avoided in entirety, sometimes, it can be the right move.
Below you'll find a few of the potential benefits related to pay-to-play, but keep reading to find my concerns, as well:
- 1. Pay-to-play can shift the cost of recreation to the people using the space, not the general taxpayer: A lot of people have an issue with paying taxes that support something that doesn't deliver a direct personal benefit - in other words, many people are already ‘paying to play' in the outdoor space without an ‘playing' involved. Of course, tax-funded improvements to a local outdoor recreation scene can help boost the overall economy of an area - no one is denying that and the continuation of that practice is a given. That said, a pay-to-play structure can be used to shift some costs associated with an outdoor space that might lie outside of the standard budget to the people who actually use a resource instead of increasing taxes across the board to meet new needs. Consider the Pikes Peak Highway as a popular Colorado Springs tourist attraction, for example. The pay-to-drive structure that's long existed is the key source of funding for this spot - should that road instead be funded via local taxpayers who rarely drive it or should it be funded by tourists who put the wear and tear on the road?
- 2. Pay-to-play can provide better and more reliable funding for maintaining high-traffic areas: A good Colorado example of this was in the decision to charge for access to Hanging Lake. As those involved in this effort will tell you, demand for accessing this area didn't just increase in recent years, it exceeded the threshold that allowed the resource to be protected. The Hanging Lake example will be mentioned several times in this piece - but as it relates to this benefit, the additional funding from pay-to-play has been crucial in helping the destination weather wildfire impacts, damaged trail and bridges, mudslides, and funding scares in recent years. The trail to this waterfall destination is as pristine as its ever been - and pay-to-play has been a big part of ensuring that the resources to make it so have been available.
- 3. Pay-to-play can help promote education related to risk and preservation: When a pay-to-play structure exists, it tends to mean that there's at least one encounter with an official source of information prior to a visit. In the case of Hanging Lake, the implementation of pay-to-play has been key in terms of reducing safety incidents on the route by providing a means of communicating the expectations a visitor should have for the trail, also ensuring that people who are visiting know the rules prior to their hike. Pay-to-play can prevent the ‘casual visitor' from just showing up at the trail with no information about how to interact with an outdoor recreation area in a responsible way.
- 4. Pay-to-play can help manage crowding: While charging some sort of exorbitant fee to access an area would be uncalled for, pay-to-play can help limit trail traffic in a number of ways. Unfortunately, the reality of a trail or outdoor space getting popular and drawing more crowds tends to mean that a lot more damage occurs and maintenance costs rise - it's not a very sustainable existence. When pay-to-play gets implemented, even if that cost is only a few dollars, it means that at least some portion of trail users will consider other local options, and in Colorado there are plenty to choose from. Additionally, pay-to-play can be a vehicle for timed-entry reservations - this is a means of not only ensuring that too many people aren't on the trail at a given time, it can also make the experience better for those who are there. No one wants to feel like they're in a conga line headed to a great view that will inevitably be flooded with dozens of people taking selfies.
- 5. Pay-to-play can help prevent skipped reservations: To continue on the topic of timed-entry reservations, many popular outdoor recreation spots have started to implement this strategy as a means of managing crowds. Unfortunately, when a reservation is totally free, people tend to see clouds in the sky and opt for another activity. Or people scoop up reservations at multiple places at multiple times and decide what they're doing on the day of. One example of this can be seen in the free reservation system that was implemented at the Manitou Incline in recent years - at one point, it was floating around that roughly 30 percent of reservations end up being ‘no-shows.' In a world where timed-entry reservations are already dictating how many people can visit an outdoor recreation space, tacking on a small fee to that reservation has been shown to increase the number of people who actually show up. Not only does that fee help fund preservation of the area, it can also ensure that fewer reservations that could have been used by others are going to waste.
- 6. Pay-to-play can help with record-keeping: When it comes to allocating resources, it can be good to have an accurate estimate of how many people are using a trail. Pay-to-play can make this more possible, allowing for more efficient use of public funds. These records can also be used to help prevent trail damage - if someone knows their name is documented on a list of visitors, they're probably more like to treat the trail with respect.
- 7. Pay-to-play can help shift the personnel burden from official agencies: In many cases, including that of Hanging Lake, a contractor is responsible for operations that come with implementing and enforcing pay-to-play. Whether it's parking lot management or staffing the welcome booth, operators tend to take over these roles in instances when outside management it utilized, often freeing up park rangers to be out in a given natural area doing what they've been trained to do instead of checking people in.
- 8. Pay-to-play can reduce strain on local resources: It was already noted how pay-to-play can help to establish better funding for a specific area that would otherwise have to come from elsewhere, but that's not where the reduced strain on local resources tends to stop. Back to the Hanging Lake example - since the implementation of pay-to-play, there's been a drastic reduction in emergency scenarios on the trail - likely attributed to better management of how many people are on the trail, trail quality, and better safety education. This has meant that local rescue groups are able to spend their time and effort elsewhere in the Glenwood Springs area, also saving big money when it comes responding to what's proven to be fairly preventable rescue scenarios at the popular destination. A source close to this effort has estimated the savings of local funds amid the decline of Hanging Lake rescues after pay-to-play was implemented as in the ballpark of $500,000.
- 9. Pay-to-play can help prevent illegal trail use: Is a trail hikers-only? Is no camping allowed? What about campfires? Are dogs not allowed in the area for the sake of protecting local wildlife? Maybe motos aren't permitted. Having the increased amount of management that tends to come with pay-to-play makes it more feasible to better monitor how a trail or natural space gets used. If the right policies are in place, hopefully this means that the space has a better shot at being maintained for the long-haul.
- 10. Pay-to-play tends to mean better amenities: With funding that can often go directly back into a specific spot, more money for the maintenance and improvement of amenities tends to be available. Additionally, when the pay-to-play structure is contracted out, it (hopefully) means that the company hired to be in charge of operations has expertise in managing parking lots, bathrooms, and other aspects related to the general experience that starts prior to boots hitting the dirt.
There are obviously several big caveats when it comes to implementing a pay-to-play approach, too, and those must by addressed. When a spot considers making the move to pay-to-play, the following should be held at top of mind:
- 1. Is pay-to-play genuinely needed? In the case of Hanging Lake, officials determined that it was needed for the sake of maintaining the longevity of the trail and protecting the natural space - those who had visited this trail during a crowded day prior to the change would likely agree. Is that always the case? No. A lot of funding for outdoor spaces already comes from elsewhere and sometimes that's adequate. It's this writer's opinion that it would be ill-advised for officials to start implementing pay-to-play where it's not actually needed. Having a lot of free options can help to spread out trail traffic as pay-to-play gets implemented elsewhere, and as long as funding that already exists is enough to protect a space for years to come, tacking on additional fees should be avoided.
- 2. Is pay-to-play making a space inaccessible? The question of ‘how much to charge' is absolutely crucial to consider in terms of implementing any effective pay-to-play plan. Any amount of money will inherently reduce access - that should never be forgotten. Finding the right balance between reducing access as little as possible and obtaining funds needed to responsibly manage, protect, and preserve a space is key.
- 3. Are pay-to-play funds used responsibly? In the scenario that pay-to-play is determined to be a necessity, transparency is key. Those using the space need to be able to trust that the money they're spending is going back into making the space better and keeping it around for future generations, not funding someone's boat on the local reservoir. Communicating how those funds are spent and why the pay-to-play price is set at the level its at is absolutely crucial.
- 4. How can access be maintained for groups most impacted by fees? As noted, implementing pay-to-play will always reduce access to some degree. Maintaining access for those unable to otherwise spend money to ‘play' is important given the many positive benefits that outdoor recreation brings and how having a more active community across the board is undoubtedly a net positive. Maybe that means having a few free days for locals spread throughout the year - or a ‘free day of the week' while implementing pay-to-play during more crowded peak tourism dates. Maybe there's some sort of a scholarship program or maybe kids under 18 can always visit for free. There are many ways to help reduce access limitations and when considering how pay-to-play should be implemented, this aspect of the system should not be skipped.
- 5. How do you keep a pay-to-play spot accessible for frequent users? In the same vein of reducing access limitations related to pay-to-play for those who are less able to afford access, frequent users of a spot should get a reduction in costs - after all, these people tend to be the greatest stewards of best practices that a spot can have. Consider the annual park pass utilized by the National Park Service. If someone visits Rocky Mountain National Park three times in a single year, they're already saving money opposed to purchasing one-off single-day vehicle passes ($30 for a single-day vehicle pass, $80 for the annual parks pass). Programs of this nature can be helpful when it comes to implementing a pay-to-play system while also limiting access impacts in the local community and among a spot's biggest fans.
As was previously noted, this piece isn't meant to advocate for or against more pay-to-play or to advocate for limiting access to the outdoor recreation space in any way. It's meant to address the side of the conversation that tends to get ignored by the public at a time when an increasing count of pay-to-play destinations seems inevitable.
There are a lot of impacts that pay-to-play has that I really don't like. I don't like how it might mean visiting a favorite trail less, I don't like how it can take the spontaneity out of outdoor recreation when paired with a timed-entry reservation system, and I despise the idea of funding gathered from its implementation being used irresponsibly. That said, pay-to-play isn't all bad. It's a coin with two sides and given that reality, it's important to address how some benefits of the system can exist - when it's implemented in the right way.
Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.
This story was originally published May 21, 2026 at 5:41 AM.