The argument for user fees is straightforward, as articulated in a policy brief by the conservative Washington Institute Foundation. It advocated a sliding scale of fees that "reflect market demand." In other words, charge more at popular parks.

"Where possible, those who benefit most from voluntarily using a government service ought to help the most to pay for it; those who visit Washington's state parks ought to pay substantially more to support them than do taxpayers who choose not to attend any parks," it said.

A very different perspective on user fees came from former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, during a recent Seattle visit.

"The diversity of incomes is getting wider and wider in America," Reich argued. "We are moving away from a progressive tax structure in this country and toward a more repressive system of fees. User fees place an extra large burden on people who can less afford it."

Reich is worried that "family values and community values" are being sacrificed in a country in which people are working harder and information technology is intruding into the privacy of the home. In such a society, getaway places are vital.

At Ginkgo Petrified Forest State Park, on the old highway down from Ellensburg to Vantage in Eastern Washington, there is a stone visitor center built in the 1930s by Civilian Conservation Corps work crews.

I've never been in it. The visitor center is usually closed, bringing a question to mind. If America could build a network of trails, campgrounds and public buildings in the Great Depression, why can't we at least spend the money to maintain them in today's robust times?

"I attribute our lack of support to the general political climate," said Thomas, a veteran conservationist and League of Women Voters activist who has fought for good government for 30 years.

The Parks Commission is struggling to see that the Legislature doesn't take day-use fees as an excuse to cut the State Parks Department's already minimal General Fund budget. Washington spends about one-third what the average state spends per visitor on management and upkeep of its parks.

The national forests of Washington provide a model for what State Parks is being forced to do.

In the mid-1990s, the U.S. Forest Service saw its budget for maintaining trails and camping areas shrink.

"People were clamoring to use the backcountry but we were at a point where we simply did not have resources," said Gary Paull, trails and recreation coordinator for the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest.

The result, five years ago, was a $3 daily parking fee at trailheads and a $25 yearly permit. The fee has since gone up to $5 a day or $30 for a permit.

With the money, the 720,000-acre national forest can at least put four rangers in the backcountry each summer, and was able to clear 679.3 miles of trail last summer. The Forest Service remains dependent on volunteer help, with Paull deploying a work force that ranges from motorcyclists to ladies garden groups.

Conservative backers of user fees do not seem likely to rest on their laurels.

In its paper, the Washington Institute Foundation argues for a "comprehensive privatization program" in which state parks would contract out park operations. It also suggests that day-use fees be used to "replace" some General Fund support.

And the conservative think tank looks favorably on state parks in Texas, which charge entrance fees ranging from $1 to $5 per person, depending on a park's popularity. "Similarly, parks ought to charge higher entrance fees on weekends to reflect greater consumer demand," argues the Washington Institute paper.

On this front, at least, Pinnix is drawing the line.

"We're not going to charge bodies," he promised. "The charge will be per vehicle."

Copying Texas, at any time in any way, makes a lot of people cringe.