[stewx]

The solution is the same one used by airlines and hotels: dynamic demand-driven pricing, charging enough that you don't sell all your seats until the last minute.

An airline that sold out of all its seats 6 months ahead of time would be considered incompetent, but governments do this all the time with reservations for various activities, because they are trying to "be nice" by charging low entry fees.

[goplayoutside]

That might be a reasonable solution for a private business, but it's not appropriate for public lands.

Increasing prices will only exacerbate the existing issues around equitable access.

Here's an article[1] describing a University of Montana study on the subject, for anyone who would like to consider the issue in greater depth.

[1] https://archive.ph/7EDcJ

[catern]

Increasing prices will increase equity. By charging rich people more, you can afford to give greater subsidies for marginalized groups and poor people, and lower the price from whatever it is currently for them. You can even use that revenue to pay them to go camping, if you really want to!

[goplayoutside]

Maybe.

In any event, that unlikely to be helpful in this specific situation, as the majority of all revenues from rec.gov go directly to BAH[1], rather than to the public land management agencies responsible for stewarding the resources in the public interest.

BAH also has price setting authority, with a dearth of public oversight.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31369931

[uoaei]

Assuming those subsidies and rebates are actually administrated. That's a very big assumption and all precedent points in the opposite direction.

[randyrand]

not everyone (few?) has the luxury of being able to plan 6 months in advance.

rich or poor. the current system excludes many people too.

[timmaah]

No. Just no.

Public lands and access to public lands can't be a playground for the rich and entitled.

[uoaei]

It's called "public land" because it is already paid for, and effectively owned, by the public. I would consider a government who resorted to market solutions "incompetent".

[kevinh]

How is that a better solution?

[stewx]

It solves the spontaneity issue. It ensures that tickets are almost always available, no matter when you book, even fairly last minute.

The reason they won't do it is because it's more complicated to implement and people will complain in the media about govt "gouging" residents.

[kevinh]

Yeah, it solves the spontaneity issue by guaranteeing only the richest have access.