Basically what this says is you want to keep the riff-raff or poor people out of state parks.
$30 user fee, no big deal huh. Pick two folks, Sucka makes $15000/ year and Joe makes $300000 per year. Lets see 30 divided by 15000 or 300000. .2% vs .01%. Shit .2% is nothing you've still got 99.8 percent left to blow.
No big deal huh? Wait a minute -Income Tax, -Food, -Housing, -Health Care, - Sales Tax, - Public Utilities... Hmm, I think Sucka realizes why he received his given name.
I worked hard to earn this
There is another angle to this, Feck. If the state charges a fee to use a park, then that makes it seem a lot like a private company charging a fee... and the difference is lost. This could allow for it to be easier for parks to be privatized as the public will see little difference in a fee-based access to something they want. By keeping parks "free"* this scenario will be less likely to occur.
Also, consider the problems we have in this country related to obesity. The state should do all it can to make recreation as available and cheap as possible. Closing the doors to parks, and charging fees that the poor can't afford or which at least are unwilling to pay for (and there is a coorelation between poor and obesity), well, this is harmful and stupid.
*yes, they cost money, duh, but funding parks through taxes in place makes it seem free, and is at least not usage-based and obvious that you pay for it...