Sure but there's levels of reasonableness that we should all be able to accept. If a word was unintentionally used out of context someone should not be ostracized for it, especially in a social forum like this. I truly believe everyone here share the same values when it comes to our love for the park and we should all be able to express our opinions in the best way we can without fear of it getting picked apart for reasons other than the intent of the message.
Anyways I'm done. I'll concede and let you have the last word.
Offline
This may be the most fair solution all around. Although Gov't being Gov't that is not like something that will be implemented. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't voice our concerns or ideas with them. With enough of a dust up something could change.
BarryB wrote:
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!
Thread StarterOffline
This.
I'm not taking sides. I can understand how PA's choice of words could have been misinterpreted and pointed that out. I have every faith that he did not intend to insult anyone with what was said.
So back to the matter at hand...Fees!
Sure but there's levels of reasonableness that we should all be able to accept. If a word was unintentionally used out of context someone should not be ostracized for it, especially in a social forum like this. I truly believe everyone here share the same values when it comes to our love for the park and we should all be able to express our opinions in the best way we can without fear of it getting picked apart for reasons other than the intent of the message.
Anyways I'm done. I'll concede and let you have the last word.
Thread StarterOffline
Guys can we please cease the squabbling? As BB stated above, "back to the matter at hands...Fees!"
Thanks!
Offline
Guys can we please cease the squabbling? As BB stated above, "back to the matter at hands...Fees!"
Thanks!
Who do you think you are, the police!!
Offline
Guys can we please cease the squabbling? As BB stated above, "back to the matter at hands...Fees!"
Thanks!Who do you think you are, the police!!
Lol...shhhhh!
Offline
I am often somewhat amused by the banter and smart a** comments on this and other forums. But I must say Martin, if I had been drinking a cup of coffee when I read your last comment, coffee would have been spraying out my nose and perhaps my ears as well.
Offline
I am often somewhat amused by the banter and smart a** comments on this and other forums. But I must say Martin, if I had been drinking a cup of coffee when I read your last comment, coffee would have been spraying out my nose and perhaps my ears as well.
There’s an inside joke there...I’m in law enforcement 
Offline
I really don't understand why they wouldn't raise the price per person by a few bucks vs. the flat rate if this was really about revenue.
Well they created a problem last year when they started charging for extra vehicles just like they do if you are car camping. The extra vehicle fee can be avoided by dividing up your party and making multiple bookings. The side effect of that is that sites will be booked that won't actually be used. Going to a flat campsite fee eliminates this problem as any group arriving in one more than vehicle is better off to get one campsite permit and pay the extra vehicle fees.
Offline
Ok let’s talk about fees.
A 7-day trip Soloist vs Group of 9
Current
$87.01 vs $783.09 ( $87.01 each)
Parks overall revenue if both groups book.
$870.10
Flat rate
$322.35 vs $322.35 ($35.82 each)
Parks overall revenue if both groups book.
$644.70
Now I don’t know what the average group size is now or what it will become under a new fee structure but here are a few reasonable assumptions.
Last edited by ShawnD (3/04/2021 11:09 am)
Offline
The comparison to front country fees doesn’t hold water either imo.
I can't remember who pointed this out earlier in the thread, but it does appear they are trying to "streamline" the overall process by modelling it after front country and car camping bookings. Obviously it doesn't make any sense considering front country comes with amenities car campers often want and will utilize, but it is what it is. Will we start to see steel fire pits and picnic tables in APP similar to the Mass now?
Also Shawn, your math here shows this clearly isn't about driving revenue on the booking side - but somehow someone has shown this will cut ops costs, which it most definitely won't
The real problem here is that decisions like this are probably being made by someone(s) who a) probably doesn't give a shit and b) doesn't have to pay these fees to use the BC (or doesn't use the BC at all anyway).
Last edited by TripperMike (3/04/2021 10:29 am)
Offline
Steve E. "There’s an inside joke there...I’m in law enforcement 
"
Hold it there right there. I always thought you were a professional photographer. Feeling disillusioned, because now I have to recognize that you honed your talent for photography to an incredible level as...an avocation?
Offline
I do like the picnic tables and fire rings of the mass but I am very much against this change even if it does result in picnic tables and fire rings in Algonquin.
Honestly, whoever is making these decisions at Ontario parks has no clue what’s going on.
I don’t even solo anymore, it’s me and the family so this will actually be relatively neutral for me but I can see how stupid it is. I’m unsure of the average group sizes. Anecdotally I would say the vast majority of groups are 4 or less and with every group below 4 they’ll probably make a bit more than previously.
Offline
Steve E. "There’s an inside joke there...I’m in law enforcement
Hold it there right there. I always thought you were a professional photographer. Feeling disillusioned, because now I have to recognize that you honed your talent for photography to an incredible level as...an avocation?
lol yup lots of trial and error (mostly error lol)! I actually just ceased the photo business as if found I didn’t have time I used to have and more importantly, the pressures of doing it for money started to take Away the actual enjoyment of it for me
Offline
Good analysis Shawn. I do agree and especially am concerned about people piling on a site now with no added cost. I think this will be especially true of groups more likely to have zero interest in park preservation. No doubt there'll be site and environment repercussions. With a family of 5 when you add in a friend for one or more of my kids I start to feel guilty with 6 people on a site.
My only guess on what your math might be missing, if this is a revenue grab, is that most backcountry bookings are likely less than 4 people? - something the parks will certainly have data for. Didn't do the math but if 80% of backcountry bookings are less than 4 people then you probably start to get revenue positive on a flat fee. But that will go revenue negative again if the Parks intend to try to keep sites clean as they would need to increase site maintenance by 100% or more.
Offline
My only guess on what your math might be missing, if this is a revenue grab, is that most backcountry bookings are likely less than 4 people? - something the parks will certainly have data for. Didn't do the math but if 80% of backcountry bookings are less than 4 people then you probably start to get revenue positive on a flat fee. But that will go revenue negative again if the Parks intend to try to keep sites clean as they would need to increase site maintenance by 100% or more.
Agreed Gord. I would love to get the data and run my own numbers. That said I think it would be foolhardy to run your model on current numbers. The change in fee structure will most assuredly change the data and booking patterns.
A group of 6 right now likely books 2 sites. They get 2 parking passes for their 2 cars paying less then they would for 1 site. New rules they will likely book 1 site as it will be quite a bit cheaper than booking 2.
Old data that looked like 2 groups of 3 but will now look like 1 group of six. The avg. party size numbers should go up making their revenue projections lower if they are just using current data and making no other assumptions.
Not to mention the impacts of pushing out smaller groups or soloists. Again when that happens the average group size goes up.
Said many times here but way easier to just raise the per person fee or institute a minimum site fee of say $20. It's more fair and would for sure raise revenue.
Offline
Back when I was in the ABR (circa 2010) and we met with park management periodically, one statistical question didn't get clearly answered. What was a figure like 600,000 visitors per year based on? Was it the number of front-country campsite bookings, the number of backcountry permits, the number of front-country campsite occupants or the number of backcountry permit occupant names? Once we even got the impression it was a simple counting of campsite occupancy days, or backcountry permit-days. It seemed to me that at the time management wasn't able to extract the exact number of separate individuals visiting the park, so they may have adopted a substitute method of "counting the visitors". We wondered about the ardent campers that use the park a number of times each year. Are they counted as one visitor, or multiple visitors? Even the seasonal and day park car-passes seemed problematic, since the passes were for each vehicle, regardless of the number of times the vehicle accessed the park or the number of occupants in it
This is 10 years after the initial unanswered question. I wonder what the "number-of-visitors" actually does represent?
