We use a travel cost model to test the effects of wild and prescribed fire on visitation by hikers and mountain bikers in New Mexico. Our results indicate that net benefits for mountain bikers is $150 per trip and that they take an average of 6.2 trips per year. Hikers take 2.8 trips per year with individual net benefits per trip of $130. Both hikers' and mountain bikers' demand functions react adversely to prescribed burning. Net benefits for both groups fall as areas recover from prescribed burns. Because both visitation and annual recreation benefits decrease to these two types of visitors, this gives rise to multiple use costs associated with prescribed burning. With respect to wildfire, hikers and mountain bikers both exhibit decreased visitation as areas recover from wildfires, however, only hikers indicate an increase in per trip net benefits. Bikers' demand effectively drops to zero. These results differ from previous findings in the literature and have implications for efficient implementation of the National Fire Plan and whether prescribed burning is a cost effective tool for multiple use management of National Forests. Specifically, that fire and recreation managers cannot expect recreation users to react similarly to fire across recreation activities, or different geographic regions. What is cost effective in one region may not be so in another.