HELENA, Mont. — When Rich Vaughn takes his boat onto the Salmon River in Idaho, he must pay $4 a day per person to the U.S. Forest Service. That hurts his sense of fairness more than his wallet.

"It's public land that's held in trust for the American people, and to charge a fee to access that land is wrong," said Vaughn, who lives in Boise, Idaho.

The Montana and Colorado legislatures agree, having recently passed resolutions demanding that Congress repeal the fees required for recreational use of certain federal lands.

Oregon legislators are advancing a similar measure worded a bit more gently — Congress is "respectfully urged" to undo the fees — but have not cast a final vote.

"We'd like to see other states join us," said Paul Clark, the Montana Democrat whose resolution contends the very way of life in his state requires free access to public lands.

Congress imposed the fees in 1996 and renewed them every two years. Then late last year, lawmakers extended the fees for at least a decade. The Forest Service collected $47 million in recreation fees in fiscal 2004.

Some critics fear the use of access fees will grow, encouraging Congress to continue to reduce the amount of money it regularly gives federal land agencies.

Supporters of fees, though, say the amount charged is modest and helps pay for amenities and maintenance not covered in regular budgets. Most federal land remains open to the public at no charge.

"The program all along has been a way for us to ensure that we are providing a high-quality recreation experience and have the kind of recreation facilities that people expect," said Dan Jiron, a Forest Service spokesman.

Holly Fretwell, a researcher at the Property and Environment Research Center in Bozeman, Mont., argues the fees establish a link between land managers and users, increasing the likelihood that managers will respond to what users want in services and facilities.

Fretwell also said user fees are appropriate at parks. "There's no reason someone in Ohio should be paying for my ability to go camping in the Gallatin National Forest," she said.

While the various resolutions by angry states have no force of law, they tell Congress an issue is of more than just passing interest to the people back home, said Jeremy Meadows of the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The Colorado resolution, for instance, states that the recreation fees amount to double taxation because Americans already pay taxes to support public lands. It also says they contradict the idea that public lands "are places where everyone is granted access and is welcome."

Access fees are collected through an honor system or at staffed booths, depending on the location. The standard penalty for not paying the access fee is a $100 fine, said Paula Nelson, spokeswoman at the Forest Service's regional office in Missoula, Mont.

While the penalty can go much higher, enforcement in some places is relatively lenient. In the forests of Southern California, for example, the agency gives violators five days in which to buy an "Adventure Pass," costing $5 a day or $30 a year, rather than imposing fines.

Not all outdoors enthusiasts are irked by the fees. In southwestern Montana's Bitterroot Valley, Steve Powell said officials channel the money "pretty directly to the area."

"It helps support a full-time presence up there in the campground, a Forest Service presence that discourages criminal behavior," he said. "I'm willing to pay for that."

The bill extending the fees was approved as part of a larger appropriations bill in November, and President Bush signed it in December. The fees are imposed for use of marked trails, parking at scenic turnouts and on such activities as boat launches and using camp sites.

Idaho Sen. Larry Craig, who heads a Senate subcommittee on public lands, plans an oversight hearing later this year, but gathering enough votes to repeal the fees is unlikely, he said.

During lean budget years, fees may be the money that keeps a campground open, Craig said. He supports the fees if there is a direct return to the user.

"However, I opposed reauthorizing the program because of some agencies abusing the authority to charge a fee without providing the user something in exchange," he said.

Critics including Oregon state Sen. Gary George, who co-sponsored the resolution in his state, believe outdoors enthusiasts aren't getting much for their money.

"We have forests in terrible condition, terrible forest health," George said. "Then they charge us to go in and look at our dead trees. Folks are not too happy about it."