Barry et al.,

One of the many benefits of a site-specific system is that it opens the park to more of us with mobility issues and other disabilities...I can now be sure that my targeted site will accommodate my physical limitations...one of the reasons behind the excellent PCI project I'd imagine...IMO, this debate can be simply framed as one between 2 groups - those that prefer FLEXIBILITY vs those that covet PREDICTABILITY...let me explain...who prefers FLEXIBILITY? Let's see: 1. Those that tend to take longer trips over a number of lakes - depending on things like weather, fatigue etc they might choose to stop early at a lake they haven't booked or go further to another lake they haven't booked - they of course will still be able to do this as (as I understand it) most lakes have more sites than permits...the problem they will face however is not just academic - they risk getting confronted for taking a site that another party has fairly and appropriately planned for and booked...that would suck for them, 2. Potentially those that feel they are entitled to any site they come upon if they're there first (of course these people have always existed but now they will be exposed), 3. Those that know the best campsites on each lake and/or know how to access this site, PCI, TRs etc (I don't condemn anyone from doing their homework - I do it too),
4. Those who are solo or who require just one tent pad at a site (i.e. thus all sites in theory will suffice)...now who would support PREDICTABILITY? 1. well obviously, as I stated above, those who are physically unable to access many sites on a given lake, 2. Those perhaps traveling across fewer lakes who plan to spend a number of nites (or all nites) at 1 site - they don't care about getting busted for squatting at a different lake and being left with a crappy site that could make or break their one trip of the year- what if there is 1 site suitable for a tent but the party has 3 tents for example?, 3. Those who believe it could help with accountability and minimize the abuse of backcountry sites...Anyway, food for thought and my attempt to frame the argument and identify why the well-intentioned people on this forum may have very different needs and points of view.

Last edited by goneagainjon (2/24/2022 3:58 pm)

BarryB wrote:

As far as backcountry campsites in parks with the new fee structures, am I correct in getting the impression that they are maintained to a certain standard, with better features such as landings, tent pads, food storage, etc? This is where I'd like to hear some firsthand feedback.

Barry,after some years camping both in APP and Temagami cluster of operating parks (Lady Evelyn, Solace, the Sturgeon) it's my opinion that an average Temagami site gets almost no maintenance from the OP, except for occasional thunderbox replacement. Temagami sites tend to be much smaller in size, provide less comfort (like flat ground for tents, convenient water access or logs around a fireplace), they are also much less used than APP ones and could be overgrown. I'd say that if you relocate an average Temagami site to some APP lake it would be the last one taken on a busy day.

disclaimer: I haven't camped in Temagami parks during the Covid seasons 2020-21, may be things are getting changed...
 

I would disagree that the entire park reservation system should be retooled to accommodate those with disabilities. Don't misunderstand me - I'm 100% for supporting equal inclusion and opportunities for everyone - but the vast majority of the Algonquin interior requires portaging. Often lengthy, rocky, rooty and hilly portages. Suggesting that site-specific bookings are necessary because someone's disability wouldn't allow them access to certain campsites is a little absurd if they have to navigate 4 kilometers of portages to reach that lake to begin with. If they can do the portages, the campsites will not be an obstacle. If they can't do the portages, the reservation system doesn't need to be revamped. 

Which brings us back to AlgonquinLakes' suggestion - which I doubt would ever happen as much as anyone else - that a hybrid solution would be the most appropriate. Make a distinction between the access point lakes and the rest of the interior, and it may be the best of both worlds. 

Or are you suggesting that your protected rights extend to the park needing to build and maintain cart-trail-quality portages throughout its entire interior? 

Uppa wrote:

I would disagree that the entire park reservation system should be retooled to accommodate those with disabilities. Don't misunderstand me - I'm 100% for supporting equal inclusion and opportunities for everyone - but the vast majority of the Algonquin interior requires portaging. Often lengthy, rocky, rooty and hilly portages. Suggesting that site-specific bookings are necessary because someone's disability wouldn't allow them access to certain campsites is a little absurd if they have to navigate 4 kilometers of portages to reach that lake to begin with. If they can do the portages, the campsites will not be an obstacle. If they can't do the portages, the reservation system doesn't need to be revamped. 

Which brings us back to AlgonquinLakes' suggestion - which I doubt would ever happen as much as anyone else - that a hybrid solution would be the most appropriate. Make a distinction between the access point lakes and the rest of the interior, and it may be the best of both worlds. 

Or are you suggesting that your protected rights extend to the park needing to build and maintain cart-trail-quality portages throughout its entire interior? 

I don't think anyone here is suggesting paved cart paths throughout the park with rope barriers blocking off danger areaa a la Disney World Uppa...there are a few here who are advocating for no accomodations and ZERO changes to the status quo that works perfectly fine for them yet completely ignores other stakeholders and points of view (it's almost as if they don't realize they too will get older one day and be a little less sure of foot...indeed 1 in 5 Canadians over 65 has a mobility challenge)

I think the point is that some site-specific reservations would help those with access limitations, those with younger children, and larger parties with 3 tents etc...and that those "accomodations" outweigh the entitlement of those that want the flexibility to camp on whatever lake they want, whether they've booked it or not...put simply, it's about responsibility, rights and reasonable accomodations vs self-serving entitlement and privilege 

Indeed  I abhor selfishness, those that confuse privileges with rights, and entitlement in any form and am surprised and saddened by a few of the posts here. (Hopefully the comments come simply from ignorance of others' perspectives vs malintent or lack of compassion)..to those here putting forward potential solutions vs whinging about protecting the status quo that works just fine for THEM - thank you! There are some good ideas here...I'd love to better understand if we have a voice with park management and can help them reach a solution that works for all constituents rather than some vocal constituents

(I note that the excellent PCI initiative presumably exists,, at least in part, because some  good people recognized that access IS limiting for some...there are some portages and sites that are reasonably accessible even a few lakes back into the park)
 

Last edited by goneagainjon (2/25/2022 4:13 pm)

You're not finding unreasonable responses, you're creating strawmen and then attacking them, rather than discussing the words other people are actually using. 

Uppa wrote:

You're not finding unreasonable responses, you're creating strawmen and then attacking them, rather than discussing the words other people are actually using. 

 
I'm not attacking anyone...and yes, there are comments here from some suggesting that the day that the park implements any sort of site-specific system they'll take their marbles (and boats elsewhere)...that's how constructive debate gets choked off and novel solutions don't emerge...I suggest you scroll up to see the comments I'm referring to, they are there in b&w...you will also note my comments have all been a constructive attempt to frame the issue to help people understand others' points of view...in fact my opening post - yes  I started the thread re David Lake precisely in an attempt to raise this issue - says something about 'well-intentioned people here can have different views because they don't understand the perspective of others...nice try but I'm not biting...I'm on the side of progress and reasonable accomodations 
Vs entitlement and the status quo..I'm completely uninterested in your slings & arrows and accusations about strawmen etc ...maybe you can be part of the solution and contribute to a positive dialogue too rather than make comments about making cart paths throughout the park (btw, that my friend is a true strawman argument)?

Uppa wrote:

You frame the argument as the poor and downtrodden family with three tents who needs to be able to book a specific site versus, in your exact words "those that want the flexibility to camp on whatever lake they want, whether they've booked it or not"

You're not remotely discussing this in good faith, so stop pretending to be the defender of all that is good and just in the universe. 

 
Wow, so sorry you are so angry and cynical...my posts are very much in good faith -  it's a very important issue for many of us (if not you personally) and one that is being considered by APP now as I understand it...Indeed, a number of good ideas have been posted ( National Parks booking model, accomodations re lakes close to access points etc) In fact, on a number of occassions I have asked if / how me might be able to shape park policy for everyone's benefit...that is being part of the solution

Your contribuion? Flimsy strawman arguments and angry classless ad hominem attacks...why dost though protest so much? Travel alone mostly? No significant mobility issues? No small kids? Camp on any lake you want without a reservation? Stop getting all worked up and let those of us who care about coming up with a positive solution and compromise continue the chat...you want to argue? Go talk to your wife or neighour who might actually care

Btw, love your quotation from above:
"I would disagree that the entire park reservation system should be retooled to accommodate those with disabilities" WOW! WHO IS ADVOCATING FOR THAT UPPA?!?

Last edited by goneagainjon (2/25/2022 5:00 pm)

Let me jump in here.  I'm not going frame a long coherent and logically consistent argument.  I'm just going to make a few observations.

I'm on the cusp of transitioning from my mid 70s to my late 70s.  I'm no longer what you could reasonably call fit.  My capabilities decline enough on a year over year basis that it is essentially impossible for me to meaningfully know what I currently may or not be capable of.  I can no longer plan.  Can I make Narrowbag the first day or will I crap out on the first or second portage?  Impossible to tell.  For me, in my physical condition, any reservation system is an impediment to my enjoyment of the park.  A site specific reservation would make my situation much worse.  All because of my current physical abilities and their decline.

I would much prefer to go back to no reservations whatsoever.

But that's not realistic

Historically, when the crowding became too much they introduced a system whereby each access point had a daily quota of back-country permits to issue -- at first only on holiday weekends.  You had to tell them where you planned on going but that was only so they would know where to send the search team if someone report you missing.

The cries for more control increased so they gave in made a percentage of the daily input quota reserveable (50%?)  The rest of the quota remained first come first serve.

The resultant crowding near the access points became an issue and they introduced a one night limit on camping near access points.  So there is a historic precedent for a two tier system -- controls near the access points but not farther in.

And then the whole system went to hell in a hand basket and they dumped the access quotas and introduced the present system.

In the "old days" you knew nothing of what awaited you.  You knew approximately where portages were but but you had no advance knowledge of campsites.  There were no accessible trip reports and campsites were not marked on the maps.  Little by little more information became available and in the process destroyed whatever was left of the wilderness feeling.  This is why I am not a fan of the PCI database (sorry Barry)

Anyway, compared to how it was in the '60s and '70s, it IS Disneyland.  (But on the other hand back then you could take your outboard motor anywhere.  I think that High Falls on the Nipissing is wilder now than it was then.  But when motors were restricted in the interior, people argued loudly that the physically challenged were being denied their rights.)

So where do I stand? I can live with the present system even though I don't like it.  If they change to a site specific system, I'll cope.  (I'm not fit enough to follow Martin's lead.)  But I expect I will occasionally go off permit as I currently do.  But thoughtfully and it's never led to a conflict.

Some old fart who still gets out there (sort of).