You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

3/03/2021 9:23 am  #35


Re: Park Fees...future

@Peek if the fixed expenses per site reservation are say, as an example, $15, then the solo is costing the Park while a tandem or group staying on a site generate more revenue. 

 

3/03/2021 9:27 am  #36


Re: Park Fees...future

RC that doesn't address the 'leveraging' that is supposedly going on. Your example may be correct, but it does not show where a soloist has an advantage, or can leverage/game the system to their advantage.

 

3/03/2021 9:31 am  #37


Re: Park Fees...future

@Peek, 'Leveraging' because realistically the solo should pay more to offset the fixed costs as per my (very basic) example.

Now don't everyone come down on me for suggesting solo campers should be paying more!!! ha

 

3/03/2021 9:36 am  #38


Re: Park Fees...future

Got it - so following the rules and buying a permit is leveraging.

 

3/03/2021 9:39 am  #39


Re: Park Fees...future

No but we are discussing why a new fee structure is being considered.

 

3/03/2021 9:42 am  #40


Re: Park Fees...future

I was arguing the context of PA's leveraging post, and how soloists are somehow at an advantage by obtaining a permit, at the same cost and through the same channels as everyone else.

 

3/03/2021 9:44 am  #41


Re: Park Fees...future

I'm not against rate increases. costs go up. but a 270% increase for the solo tripper seems just a tad excessive to me.. I would have to speak to a few corporate lawyers I work with but pretty sure it violates the governments own Consumer Protection Act legislation. You can't raise rates for a service more than 10% in a given year.  I'm sure the government has a loophole though as it benefits them though and not a private company. 

Also I see an empty campsite much like an empty seat in a movie theater or a plane. If the Park is 100% full and the sites booked by soloists could have gone to  groups then yes less profitable. The backcountry is never 100% full and solo paddlers are more likely to be in the heart of the park where 100% occupancy is even less likely.. hence paying for a site that would have been empty anyway..

If the solo trippers don't go now because of the cost . well that is less profitable.. and they have not been leveraging anything..

Last edited by ShawnD (3/16/2021 5:21 pm)


We do not go to the green woods and crystal waters to rough it, we go to smooth it.
 - George Washington Sears
 

3/03/2021 9:50 am  #42


Re: Park Fees...future

the only leverage that i see is trippers from the u.s.
        using the approx 30% currency  difference and a g.s.t. rebates subtracted from our canadian costing model. who is leveraging who here,,   

 

3/03/2021 9:57 am  #43


Re: Park Fees...future

@ ShawnD - replace the word 'leverage' with 'utilize'.  I do not intend a negative connotation to the term 'leverage' that you impart a sense of shame with but a swap to 'utilize' should sanitize the term.  

@Peek - not sure how you expect me to provide a citation for the specific costs of a business which I do not have visibility to their accounting, but on a theoretical basis, if you envision an agency employee at a desk who takes two calls for a 5 night reservation and the fees from one call total $60 for a solo traveler and the fees from the other call total $80 for a group of travelers...the revenue generated is higher for the group booking.  The expenses for those two calls are roughly equivalent if the time to conduct such an interaction is similar.
If your contention with "citation needed" is centered on the term 'leverage', just replace that with "utilize" and see how that feels.  
I certainly do not intend to 'troll' - the language I used is not inflammatory (although both of you appear to dislike the term 'leverage' but I propose a, hopefully, more palatable term of 'utilize') and it is not off topic or distracting from the original subject.  I don't frequent Reddit so I don't understand what you mean by 'shitpost' but it certainly seems derogatory.  I pride myself on my ability to communicate and I take time to construct complete thoughts and concepts.  I apologize if I have offended you in some way through my comments but I would recommend you read them for what they say and not for how they make you feel.

 

3/03/2021 10:02 am  #44


Re: Park Fees...future

That just it, PA. I did read your words for what they say, and you chose the word leveraging, not me. No apology needed, this isn't offensive - it was just inaccurate. That was my point. You were insinuating that soloists are somehow getting more out of the entire experience - when they're in fact getting the exact same benefits as anyone else.

 

3/03/2021 10:20 am  #45


Re: Park Fees...future

The term leverage has multiple definitions; I intended to use it as a reference to gaining a benefit from the interaction, that benefit being the enjoyment of backcountry camping.  I did not intend it to mean an unfair advantage.  All users of the park 'leverage' the resource to their benefit regardless of their group size.  

To demonstrate my objectivity, I have requested Barry removed me as a moderator.  In this manner, I do not have to be concerned that I am in some way tarnishing the image of Algonquin Adventures.  

 

3/03/2021 10:24 am  #46


Re: Park Fees...future

No need to apologize PA . I'm just sayin..

https://i.imgur.com/wXXKCpH.png


We do not go to the green woods and crystal waters to rough it, we go to smooth it.
 - George Washington Sears
 

3/03/2021 10:30 am  #47


Re: Park Fees...future

You're being too hard on yourself.

PaPaddler wrote:

The term leverage has multiple definitions; I intended to use it as a reference to gaining a benefit from the interaction, that benefit being the enjoyment of backcountry camping.  I did not intend it to mean an unfair advantage.  All users of the park 'leverage' the resource to their benefit regardless of their group size.  

To demonstrate my objectivity, I have requested Barry removed me as a moderator.  In this manner, I do not have to be concerned that I am in some way tarnishing the image of Algonquin Adventures.  

 


"Remember you belong to Nature, not it to you." - Grey Owl
     Thread Starter
 

3/03/2021 10:39 am  #48


Re: Park Fees...future

I think this has gotten way out of hand. We should be holding lively discussions on topics and concepts that are relevant to the Park and not semantics (hope I used the correct word there...). https://cdn.boardhost.com/emoticons/happy.png

 

 

3/03/2021 10:47 am  #49


Re: Park Fees...future

as far as permit increases earmarked to help restore/ maintain park infrastructure,  "friends of algonquin park" does many improvement projects,,   ranger cabin work is one job,,  

 

3/03/2021 11:10 am  #50


Re: Park Fees...future

RCSpartan wrote:

I think this has gotten way out of hand. We should be holding lively discussions on topics and concepts that are relevant to the Park and not semantics (hope I used the correct word there...). https://cdn.boardhost.com/emoticons/happy.png

 

Considering semantics is the relationship between words and how we draw meaning, I'd say, no, you didnt use the correct word there.

Leveraging versus utilization have different connotations and implications. They do not share a definition or meaning. Why is this concept so off-side here?

 

3/03/2021 11:19 am  #51


Re: Park Fees...future

Yes, I can see how the term "leverage" brassed some people off.

"Realize an advantage" might have been better, as being able to get a campsite to oneself while the business operator only gets a "one-person" rental fee.

Conversely, "producing a disadvantage to the business operator" by taking up a campsite and preventing the campsite's occupancy by a "group" which would generate more revenue to the business.

The end result of "same-fee-occupancy" does discriminate against the solo-tripper as a park user. A solo-tripper only deposits a fraction of the "poop" into a thunderbox. Likewise, a solo-tripper only "wears-and-tears" landings, portages, and campsites a fraction of what a group does.

The government is wanting to stop running the backcountry on a "user-fee" basis and now wants to run the backcountry on the same model as the front-country drive-in campgrounds' "same-fee-occupancy".

I'm thinking that ideally the park could start with their "same-fee-occupancy" rate, consider it as representative of a typical group of four in two canoes, adjust it percentages downward for smaller groups, and upward for larger groups. That way the cost of the varying "wear-and-tear" factor would be more fairly reflected in the rates being charged!

But we are dealing with a government that looks at the drive-in campground as an existing business model that maximizes revenue, and the existing backcountry system as allowing solo- trippers to "minimize the revenue" per campsite.

Yes, solo-tripping, and couples-tripping for that matter, could definitely become a more expensive form of enjoying the park.

 

Board footera

LNT Canada is a national non-profit organization dedicated to promoting responsible outdoor recreation through education, research and partnerships.