[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.