Offline
trippythings wrote:
...imagine if they announced "We're making some changes! Camping fees will now be variable depending on how many people are in your group, so fees are fair regardless of how many people are in your trip. Also when you make a reservation online, you'll now be able to see how many campsites are on your desired lakes, and how many of those campsites are still available for reservation."
'You take that flawless logic and GET THE HELL OUTTA HERE!'
- Ontario Parks.
Offline
my c.c.r. has a thread going on this topic,, good read,,
Last edited by swedish pimple (3/05/2020 7:45 am)
Offline
This is a pretty upsetting revelation. As someone who is relatively young and cash strapped I don't have a lot of money for vacations. I rely on the parks system as a cheap vacation away from my job in the City.
I plan on contacting my MPP (Simcoe-grey) about this issue. It would be good to somehow make a concerted effort to show our anger about this issue.
Offline
John, I don’t get what you’re trying to accomplish here? True, the rates haven’t changed for Algonquin. But it’s not hard to look at these changes and see how they could very easily be applied to the Park in a few years.
Like most people on this thread, I think the current fee structure is better than the new one. If that’s the case, doesn’t it make sense to think about possible changes to it proactively instead of reacting once it takes effect on a wider scale? The more people who know the direction things are going now, the better chance there is that those who disagree with the changes can make their voices heard before any possible changes come down, rather than after.
I don’t know. To me this is an extremely relevant conversation. I think dismissing it by focusing on the short term is a mistake.
Offline
I think dismissing it by focusing on the short term is a mistake.
So is arguing with the local troll, but I commend your efforts on raising awareness to this issue.
Offline
I think dismissing John as "the resident troll" says more about you than John.
Offline
The expectation with this, as with any discussion on the forum, is that disagreements in perspective or opinion are kept civil and respectful. To cite the terms of service as a reminder:
1) This forum is not a venue for "argument", "debate" or "inappropriate comments". The AlgonquinAdventures.com Discussion Forum is a free service, provided by AlgonquinAdventures.com (aka-Barry Bridgeford). Toward retaining this forum's "family-friendly" qualities and toward keeping it "on-topic", the forum's team of moderators can exercise a number of controls over its content and accessibility.
9) No uncivil postings should be made. Such postings occur when either .. someone "names" another and then proceeds to criticize them directly .. or someone "names" someone, misrepresents that person's opinion and then proceeds to criticize that "misrepresentation", thereby provoking the person who's opinion they are misrepresenting. Only "information" should be directly addressed on the forum. "Personal" criticisms and provocations are not acceptable.
Offline
...But it’s not hard to look at these changes and see how they could very easily be applied to the Park in a few years...
If I recall correctly, the my ccr thread had a response from Massasagua Park saying that this is a 2 year trial that would then be rolled out everywhere, depending upon its success.
I'm don't know why they are changing the backcountry fee structure to something radically different. Not sure if it is purely about revenue (Hmmmm, isn't it always about the money?) but there would be a loss with this method whenever the group size is 4 or more. Then I think about car camping and perhaps that fee structure should change as it is prohibitively expensive to solo car camp. I also wonder what will happen to the winter backcountry rates. Are they going to charge almost $50 a night when you don't even get a real site. Instead you just find some random patch and pitch a tent.
Offline
.....but there would be a loss with this method whenever the group size is 4 or more.
And there would be a deterrent for solo campers or groups of 2 (I doubt groups of 3 would care much about the incremental cost per person).
Group size:
1 - less bookings but park profits
2 - less bookings but park profits
3 - equal bookings and park profits
4 - equal bookings and breakeven
5 - park loses money
6 - park loses money
7 - park loses money
8 - park loses money
9 - park loses money
You would think they hopefully made this decision based on existing data (# of bookings each season for each of the 1 through 9 group sizes), but I really can't see how this change would net any incremental revenue. They profit on group sizes 1 - 3 and they lose money on group sizes 5 - 9. There has to be significantly more bookings in that 1 - 3 range to offset not only the potential decrease in bookings, but also the lost revenue from the 5 - 9 range.
Offline
Hey Trippy. I don’t think they know. Hence the 2 year pilot. Generally I agree with what you are saying though. Plus they are going to have to assume learnings in Temagami will hold true in Algonquin and I’m not sure that they would.
There is also the added complication that I’m pretty sure this is the Ministries Pricing Strategy Dept. 
Last edited by ShawnD (3/06/2020 5:00 pm)
Offline
huffington post has a article about the aberta provincial gobermint selling off dozens of provincial parks to save cash,, i believe that ontario is deeper in debt than aberta,, another pet project between provinces,,
sorry i can not get the link to work , great read with lots of feed back from pizzed of people
Edit by Barry: added link.
Last edited by swedish pimple (3/06/2020 5:59 pm)
Offline
....Plus they are going to have to assume learnings in Temagami will hold true in Algonquin and I’m not sure that they would.
I agree. Algonquin is way too unique given it's size and overall accessibility to many. Any data from Killarney, Temagami, etc. could give some indicators, but Algonquin is a completely different ball game.
Offline
...This was in the early nineties , our interior fees were a few dollars less than today ...
I agree that the current backcountry fees are good value for money and I would easily accept a 10% or even 20% increase to help make parks both self funding and help preserve and expand them. What I don’t get is this redistribution of who will pay for what. It seems fair that if one guy goes into the park he should pay X and if he brings 3 buddies then they should pay 4X in total. Why give a discount to larger groups when they could be contributing a fair share to support our parks?
Last edited by solos (3/09/2020 6:18 am)
Offline
I agree. Algonquin is way too unique given it's size and overall accessibility to many. Any data from Killarney, Temagami, etc. could give some indicators, but Algonquin is a completely different ball game.
All I can speak to is Algonquin Park's backcountry campsites (not having camped at Killarney or Temagami).
Having camped in Algonquin's backcountry many times over a quarter century, and having had many more PCI campsite reports cross my desk, I can state with confidence that the backcountry campsites vary from tiny to large, from steep to flat, from rocky to swampy, from sheltered to windblown. There are no standards to the campsites beyond a fire-ring and a thunderbox!
I put a question to those who have camped the backcountry of Killarney or Temagami .. how do the campsites there stack-up to Algonquin's?
Offline
.....A put a question to those who have camped the backcountry of Killarney or Temagami .. how do the campsites there stack-up to Algonquin's?
I haven't camped in Temagami but I've been through Killarney numerous times. The average campsite in Killarney is equivalent to a nice campsite in Algonquin. It's normal to have chunks of open rock/quartzite at the shorelines with spacious interiors. The functions of the sites are similar (varying qualities of fire pits, seating, tent pads, etc.), but aesthetically, Killarney sites on average are nicer than Algonquin's.
Someone asked me to see photos of Lake Nellie where I camped last summer so I made a temp page on my website to show them:
It's only 3 sites on one lake but it's a good representation.
The way I describe it when people ask me, in terms of the park overall and the campsites, is that Killarney feels like a postcard you send to someone while you're travelling, but Algonquin just feels like home.
Offline
Great post and some excellent comments re increased nightly fees for Temagami and Missassauga Parks.. I have never canoed, camped, or fished in any of these parks and have no plans to do so. After all, when you have found the best, why try the rest. 
To be honest, I have no idea what the difference is between soloists and groups camping in these other Parks. But it sounds to me that there are more groups than soloists.
Seriously though, most of the posts have to do with canoeing and camping and no mention of fishing. When it comes to trout fishing in Algonquin Park (as well as other species), the others just aren't even close to what APP has to offer. As for APP nightly fees, I have been camping in Algonquin for 54 years and I remember when I was 16 my permit was $6/night for a group or single person. Today, this rate has doubled for a single person, and even less than that for me seeing I am a senior. As a soloist, I would never pay what these other parks are asking for and seriously doubt many will. Thus, I can see more canoeists/campers and those wishing to fish visiting Algonquin Park more often. Hopefully, this will increase Algonquin's revenues and thus make it possible for more wardens to patrol Algonquin. One can only wish and time will tell.
However, what time has told us is that they we have been given a gift over the years for canoeing, camping and fishing in Algonquin Provincial Park for some very small nightly fees. For this I am truly thankful for, as well as members of this forum and the others who visit Algonquin Park more often. After all, who wouldn't after canoeing, camping and fishing in THE GREATEST PARK IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD! And yes I am biased because honestly, I can't believe any other Park could have given me what Algonquin has over these past 54 years as Algonquin Park is my friend, my second home, my destiny!
Last edited by boknows (3/07/2020 4:17 pm)
Offline
For those interested in following the discussion in more detail:
And accompanying petition:
