Offline
Barry, to head back to your original question: "For those who have recently camped backcountry in both Algonquin Park and those parks with new fee structures .. how do the actual campsites compare?" I was planning to let you know that nothing changed at all so far in Killarney and I didn't see much change in Kawartha Highlands (though I gave up camping there when the ATVs and chainsaws were more common than the loons). But as I started to post I realized that in those cases the fee structure didn't change really. So, I have nothing to say but now I've had to read 4 pages on another subject 
I am in the "apply site specific to the access lakes" camp. Various reasons but I'll save those for when you ask.
Offline
Don't hold back Gord! Please share your thoughts regarding access lakes.
Thread StarterOffline
Marko_Mrko wrote:
Opeongo (and probably any other motorboat permitted lakes) I think is a prime candidate for site specific booking. Even with the different arms, when the lake is full (despite unbooked sites) you could still waste a lot of time paddling the lake to find a free site & that can be tough at times due to distance & a big lake that can get Windy.
This seems like a reasonable approach. Make all lakes within a single day's paddle site-specific. Or alternatively, all lakes that are accessible through a 750-m portage or less (or maybe 1km?).
These are the highest-use lakes, and are the lakes where new campers would go.
Bang on!
It would also not be too intrusive for us who prefer deep interior camping - book a site-specific site the first night and last nigh, lake-based reservation for the rest of the trip.
Site specific would be better for Tom Thompson, Ragged, Rock, Opeongo, Ralph Bice etc etc.
But there is very little sense for deep interior lakes, and would significantly reduce the quality of the experience for people who do use those lakes.
Offline
West Koko Pond - Sent 2/13/2022 10:05 pm - from goneagainjon
Hi boknows, have you ever bushwhacked in there? Thx, Jon
Just my 2 cents that Jon does not have "mobility" or "limitation" issues.
West Koko Pond is at end of Koko Creek that runs into Proulx Lake. My reply is listed below...
Re: West Koko Pond - Sent 2/19/2022 2:21 pm - to goneagainjon
No.....I've been up Koko Creek until it ends. After this, it is all swamp....
Bo
Yep, progressively worsening hip issues unfortunately Bo. Still some decent mobility and km left vs many others though. That said, one doesn't have to belong to a minority or marginalized or disadvantaged group to support their equality rights to limited public tax-payer resources, do they? Site-specific reservations at access lakes makes sense to many. Opeongo might be an exception due to potential safety concerns as well argued here.
He/him ;)
And yes Slobodan, boknowsdidley, boknowssquat, bojangles your post re my disabilities was (unsurprisingly) extremely ignorant...put a canoe on my head and point me in the general direction...cool...make me climb in and out of my canoe over beavers dams or disembark on sketchy landings? Pure hell...but thanks for your concern captain empathy
Offline
Over the passing year since last February, most peoples' physical challenges have likely got worse. I know mine have. Finding my own challenges increasing tends to increase my empathy for others in the same boat. The last thing I want to be known as is a "cranky old fart". I'm reminded of Steve Smith's sage saying "We're all in this together."
Thread StarterOffline
I think a sensible approach would be to make site-specific reservations applicable only to certain lakes near major access points. Perhaps:
- North Tea (West Arm)
- Kiosk
- Cedar
- Travers
- Grand (Achray)
- Opeongo (South Arm)
- White Fish
- Rock
- Canisbay
- Joe/Little Joe/Lost Joe/Baby Joe
- Rain
- Tim
Offline
We all want our cake. While I have no desire to share a site with another party, there's a rule that applies in most (if not all) Quebec provincial parks - as long as there are free tent pads, no one can refuse your access. A "site reservation" exists only for specific sites. Your fee covers your right to be in the park, not a short-term property rental. If everyone used common sense, this rule needn't be discussed - I've let other campers stay on "my" site in Algonquin because of their ill-preparedness.
Offline
Well I'm against it, even as old age limits what I can do. It's the first step down the slippery slope of the complete removal of the remaining flexibility that one has of adapting to the changing circumstances that arise during a trip. The current restrictive reservation system started life as a few innocuous restrictions on "access lakes".
Offline
no thanks
Offline
I wouldn't consider the want/need for flexibility entitlement. And if you deem that entitlement you must also deem the individuals wanting predictability entitlement as well. It's a privilege to access the park.
I've been on trips where the weather has drastically changed from the original forecast forcing me to stop early on a lake I did not intend staying on. I believe booking by campsite can be feasible if it's within a half days paddle of an access point. But for the deeper interior it should be left as is for safety reasons. Like stated above, if you can manage to make it through longer portages, I don't think you have mobility issues and need to book site specific. I do believe access points and lakes within short portages such as: Tom Thompson, teepee, little Joe, ragged, pen, North tea, etc. could potentially be booked site specific. But interior shouldn't change. Opeongo would be a good lake to have the site specific system in as you can get a boat taxi to that specific site, or close to it.
Wind bound, gear issues, unpredictable weather, forest fires, food problems, etc. All variables that can change the original travel plan. So switch it to site specific and now what are you supposed to do in these situations? Not everyone has or can afford satellite communication devices to relay messages to have someone at home change the itinerary.
Plus, when staying on a new lake, half of the fun is searching for the "best" campsite.
Last edited by NatureNeller (2/26/2023 2:15 pm)
Offline
Don't hold back Gord! Please share your thoughts regarding access lakes.
Ok, some thoughts in favour of site specific on access lakes:
- given increasing use, the argument for no to low regulation decreases. I would use QEII campsites in support of this where sites are swamped with litter and human waste.
- I hold out a small hope that having your name tied to a specifically reserved site may lead to less abuse and more leave no trace which is currently sorely lacking
- I don't understand the safety argument of free for all camping, especially on access lakes. Hopefully knowing exactly where you are going to get to your site would be safer than roaming at random looking for a vacant site on a stormy day. If you can't get there because it is that dangerous - pull to the shore. And for some, knowing they have to find a specific site may actually cause them to look at a map and appreciate challenges involved before they set out
- an accommodation for larger groups/families who can to get closer to real camping and hopefully some skill building but have to juggle 5+ summer job schedules and a varying range of skill sets and comfort zones. This is my selfish reason for being ok with site specific on an access lake as these days I am mostly a friends and family camper. I could just take my group to another park instead of APP but that argument can also be applied to any hard core camper can't it? There is a ton of crown land and a pile of non operating parkland for the real wilderness seekers, one of my favourites is Phillip Edward. Or even just a few portages out in APP.
