Most of the lakes are dead due to acid rain originating from Sudbury in the pre superstack years ('50s/'60s I believe). Before that, lake trout fishing was reportedly good. It makes the lakes clear and beautiful, but not that interesting (or legal) to fish in. That said, the buffered lakes around the north edge of the park have good bass and pike fishing from my experience. 

I just signed the petition. I suggest everyone do so. Based on the language we've seen, there's no reason to think this wouldn't come to Algonquin, and NOW is the time to push back. I fully support a 10-20% individual user fee hike if increased revenues are required. The current model of pay-per-user, not pay-per-site, it the right model.

Thanks for the links Zemantics! I'm typically hesitant/skeptical to sign petitions, but I signed this one. I also plan to respectably make my concerns known to my local MPP along with a couple of other key decision making MPP's.

The below article may lend some further insight on the initiative:
https://kawarthanow.com/2019/02/07/peterborough-kawartha-mpp-dave-smith-is-now-special-advisor-for-ontario-parks/
Note that Rod Phillips is no longer the Ontario Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks  - it is now Jeff Yurek.

Car vs. backcountry camping are two very different animals. As a solo trekker, my impacts are a fraction of larger groups, Everything from trail wear, thunder box use, firewood use, eco disturbance, and camp site impacts. I absolutely don't begrudge larger groups, but can't agree with individuals paying a fraction of what I would need to pay while collectively having a significantly higher impact on the trail and site areas. I understand the benefits of 'streamlining operations', but I don't believe this is a fair contender. 

The CCR discussion (as per Zemantics' link) has some great points, and user frozentripper has some especially useful information (his findings point to this being a pilot that will be rolled out to all parks in 2 years). There are workable solutions that can increase revenue without grossly penalizing solo and couple trekkers. Thinking about our local conservation parks where I live, the entrance fee is per person, with price cap consideration given to families (or perhaps groups). For the record, I am 100% in favour of paying a higher fee to keep up our parks. But I can't fathom paying nearly 4 times the current rate. I suspect that for many of us solo trekking is a way to de-stress and is of great benefit to our mental health. I find it ironic that financial considerations (i.e. stress) will be required to even go. I'm also concerned about the domino effect on other 'freely' run trails and crown land options and believe a critical balance is needed here.
 

Last edited by hiker72 (3/24/2020 9:17 am)

EGB wrote:

boknows wrote:

  Just proves that no Ontario park has what Algonquin has to offer re trout fishing..

*Lake Superior PP- hold my beer
 

I have never fished Lake Superior PP so I can only say maybe in regards to trout fishing.

However, when you compare the size of Superior PP (1550 sq. kms) to APP (7653 sq. kms) and Superior PP canoe routes (150 kms) to APP canoe routes (1200 kms) and also Superior PP having 200 back country sites as compared to APP back country sites (too many to count), to me there is still no comparison.

APP rules!  - hold MY beer!