Maybe it is my Western, American perspective, and maybe I misinterpreted from the article, but it seems like the entrance fee was implemented mostly to cover upkeep costs of maintaining the trail and surrounding area. It also seems like the entrance fee is what is causing people to use the trail less, which makes sense if they didn’t have to pay for it previously. I don’t see any mention of any other rules that may have caused people to use it less.

Am I missing anything? From my perspective, which totally could be completely warped since I don’t live in a Freedom to Roam country (or at least it isn’t viewed that way), this seems perfectly reasonable. I’m open to hearing why it isn’t, or other ways it could have been implemented. Especially if there was mention of a rule I missed that had more impact than the entrance fee.