Tourism continues to boom in Colorado, and as a result, many locals fear that their favorite locations are being “loved to death.” From massive crowds that swarm iconic vistas to trail decay resulting from increased use, outdoor recreation lovers are seeking a solution that will help preserve the Centennial State’s treasures for future generations before it’s too late. Here’s one simple solution: charge residents less for visits to natural attractions (or in other words, adopt a local’s discount). Before you unleash your hatred on my suggestion, hear me out.

One Take articles are a space in which members of the OutThere Colorado community express their opinions on relevant, sometimes controversial topics. Opinions expressed in this piece are that of the author, not necessarily OutThere Colorado as an organization. Have an opinion about this topic? Share it in the Facebook comments at the bottom of this article.

This idea of tiered access fees in Colorado initially crossed my mind during a recent trip to India. My first visit to the country, I wanted to see all of the touristy stuff and I was willing to pay for it. Fortunately, I had the best guide around – a college buddy that was born and raised in Delhi. Before I got off the plane, he had made us an itinerary that spanned several weeks with the goal of checking off all of the “must-see” locations in Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Himachal Pradesh, from the Dalai Lama’s temple in the foothills of the Himalayas to the Taj Mahal in the bustling city of Agra.

One thing that I quickly noticed was that my ticket to enter many of these iconic destinations would always cost more than his – often five times as much. While the favorable exchange rate meant that this wasn’t more than a slight nuisance, it was still enough for me to make note. For instance, fees at one UNESCO World Heritage site – Qutb Minar – are 30 rupees for Indians, but 500 rupees for foreigners. When I asked my friend about it, he explained that this practice was completely normal, as official prices for non-Indians visiting Indian attractions are almost always higher.

Why? Two reasons. One – tourists are more likely to be able to pay a higher price. And two – many of the destinations hold religious significance, meaning they’re visited on a very regular and practiced basis by those who hold them dear. In this second instance, it’s all about increasing the level of accessibility for those in the local community who view visitation as a necessity. This got me thinking about how a similar approach could benefit Colorado.

While the first point may hold true in the Centennial State – that tourists might have more money that they’re willing and able to spend – charging people more for something simply because they can pay for it seems unethical to me (at least in the case of Colorado tourism). The second reason – that regular visits are made by locals due to religious necessity – was what struck me as a real reason for tiered fees. But how does this apply to Colorado?

While someone might not visit the Manitou Incline or Maroon Bells because a certain religion tells them they should do so, many Colorado locals have incorporated the state’s natural destinations into their lifestyle routine – from finding sanctuary in the wilderness to working out on a specific trail.

As fees inevitably start to rise as a result of increased traffic creating a greater demand for maintenance, these prices will start to push the “regular-use” locals away from certain cherished destinations unless something is done to prevent that. While I believe that natural destinations should be loved and appreciated by all, it’s the locals that are a part of the community that’s responsible for the care of these attractions. If the local community is unable to enjoy them due to costs, this group’s sense of responsibility will likely drop, something that could de-prioritize the care for these spots in the public agenda.

Consider the aforementioned Manitou Incline trail, a steep climb up nearly 3,000 steps in slightly less than a mile. Once illegal to hike, popularity among the rule-bending locals kickstarted the commercialization of this destination, leading to a push to legitimize the experience by officially opening it up to the public, extensively repairing the trail, and creating an attraction for visiting tourists that has shown to have a real economic impact on the local town, Manitou Springs.

However, as it’s popularity has grown, ever-rising parking costs and talks of a pay-to-play structure at the Manitou Incline has led to big concerns among the same locals whose interest helped build the Incline into the sophisticated destination it has become. These locals fear that as it continues to become a more expensive experience, those that climb it frequently are the ones that will suffer most – the same people most likely to deeply care about it’s wellbeing and upkeep, similar to how those practicing religion at an Indian mosque are most likely to care about the building’s condition.

While fees keeping locals out of certain spots may be an unintentional side effect of trying to turn natural attractions into revenue streams, it could have very real consequences. A possible solution? Charge locals less, charge non-locals more.

The tourists will come (and pay) either way, but by charging Colorado residents less to visit local outdoor recreation attractions, you’re encouraging them to keep visiting frequently, something that will likely keep them caring about these places at a higher level. In turn, they’ll be more likely to do what they can to protect these places, from helping to maintain the trail to driving legislation that favors the preservation of these spots. Additionally, by ensuring that more invested locals are present, visitors will likely have more examples to follow when it comes to properly interacting with Colorado nature, something that might be an unfamiliar setting for the out-of-towner.

If it doesn’t say “Colorado” at the top of your driver’s license, I know what you might be thinking – this policy sounds discriminatory…and on some level, it is. This means that you might be paying $10 to climb the Incline compared to the Manitou Springs resident that might do it for cheaper or for free. You’d be subsidizing the cost of their presence on the trail. But is it worth it if this might mean that the trail will have a better chance of remaining in good condition? Would you be willing to help us maintain the beautiful landscape that you travel from miles away to see?

At times, Colorado can seem as if it’s at a crucial tipping point, and there’s no stopping the flow of people coming to see our snow-capped peaks and mountain streams. As a state, we have to find a way to adjust to this influx before it’s too late, and that costs money – from education to preservation to regular maintenance. With growing costs, it’s obvious that pay-to-play is likely in the future for the Centennial State, but by using a tiered pricing structure based on residence, we can help to ensure that pay-to-play doesn’t keep the locals from maintaining their unsung role as the guardians of the trail. In the end, keeping locals on the trail is what’s best for residents and non-residents, alike, because it’s what’s best for protecting the natural beauty of what many consider to be America’s most beautiful state.

Editor’s Note: Spencer McKee is the Director of Audience Development for OutThere Colorado. His professional background lies in both new media technology and adventure tourism. If you’re interested in reading another opinion piece written by him, check out: “ Will the Internet Destroy the Great Outdoors?“