Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, want to quash the user fees people are charged to pay to recreate on federal lands.

That’s fine with us. But first, show us where Congress is going to come up with $50 million a year to replace the money the fees bring in.

Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., chairman of the House Forest and Public Lands Subcommittee, repeated at a hearing Wednesday the criticisms people have about paying to play on federal lands.

The recreation fees are unpopular. It’s unfair to people with lower incomes. It’s charging Americans a fee for access to land owned by the public.

And the federal government hasn’t been forthcoming enough in some cases about how it’s spending the money from the fees.

“I firmly believe that the American public should not have to pay additional fees to have access to our world class system of parks, forests, refuges and public lands,” he said.

There’s some truth to those claims. But the reason the federal government went to the user fee program was because Congress had a hard time coming up with money to fund the upkeep of federal lands. Eliminate the fees and the money problem sticks around. User fees have brought in about $2 billion since 1996.

Baucus, Crapo and other critics don’t have an alternative funding mechanism. And does anybody believe that it will somehow be easier now to get Congress to fund the upkeep?

When Congress can’t come up with something better, we don’t have a problem with the principle of having people who are using the forest pay a bit more for that privilege.

The fees are usually low — $5 at trailheads and $30 for a yearlong Northwest Forest Pass. Most access to federal lands remains free.

Some federal land managers have not been open about how the money from the fees is used, at least according to Congressional testimony.

The only section of the Baucus-Crapo bill that should not be scrapped calls for clear reports to Congress about how fees are used.