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

3/04/2021 11:00 am  #69


Re: Park Fees...future

MooseWhizzer Dave wrote:

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

 

3/04/2021 11:10 am  #70


Re: Park Fees...future

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. 

 

3/04/2021 11:25 am  #71


Re: Park Fees...future

GordK wrote:

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.


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

3/04/2021 1:18 pm  #72


Re: Park Fees...future

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?

 

3/05/2021 7:38 am  #73


Re: Park Fees...future

You certainly could make a formal request through the Access to Information act.  I'm sure there's a substantial amount of red tape to wade through that process and it may be incessantly delayed due to an inability to locate the estimates or the methods chosen to derive the estimates...or it could trigger a system-wide audit that disrupts the park service entirely for a month right around ice-out.

On second thought, let's just guess.

 

3/06/2021 9:13 am  #74


Re: Park Fees...future

It shouldn’t be too much to ask for a FOI on the current park usage stats. That information must be pretty at-hand, with the reservation system they know the party size per reservation made.

I would suspect that it averages out to about 4, but I don’t know. But in the end it doesn’t really matter- if the system was operating at a 10% deficit they should raise the prices by 10%. Easy as that, no one would complain, most people wouldn’t even notice. This isn’t a business, it’s not necessary to maximize revenue or ‘streamline models’ (ie, just make the prices similar...? How this would have any practical ‘streamlining’ function I can not imagine... what are they even attempting to ‘streamline’?).

Any costs incurred by making a reservation are surely covered by the reservation fee, and CAMIS is the party responsible for that. The park’s operating expenses are going to be higher level things- flying planes to check ice out, having rangers and front line staff and washrooms and parking lots, clearing portages, all the office costs. In the end I would think that the cost of running a park is pretty much based on how many people go to the park, and not the act of having a campsite and booking people on it. Raise prices 10%, and you’re done. All the downsides of the per site pricing have been clearly laid out here- it’s time to email Jeff Yurek directly. I doubt anyone gives a hoot about our whining on this forum.

Last edited by nvm (3/06/2021 9:18 am)

 

3/06/2021 5:54 pm  #75


Re: Park Fees...future

Just chiming in again to note that I sent an email, myself. It really doesn't hurt if we collectively voice concerns so if you are on the fence, fire away too.

minister.mecp@ontario.ca

 

3/07/2021 2:16 pm  #76


Re: Park Fees...future

Glad I didn't end up purchasing a solo canoe knowing these crazy fees are coming next year. I just looked at bookings at The Mass and it seems like the fees aren't deterring anyone from booking as it looks pretty solidly booked. Who knows how much of that is bumped up by the pandemic and people trying to find a holiday within Ontario though. 

I go crown land kayak camping every year so I guess I'll just be doing more of that instead of going to AP. 

 

3/07/2021 3:53 pm  #77


Re: Park Fees...future

One more thought -- thanks to Covid-19 we've been through a year where you didn't need to check in at an office at the start of your trip.   A system where there is no contact with a live park representative at the start of a trip is more manageable if there is simply a flat fee for a campsite.   That's the situation with the canoe camping offered on a number of lakes in North Frontenac Township -- you reserve and pay a flat fee for a campsite on a website and never see anyone employed by North Frontenac.   Some of the lakes in North Frontenac also require the purchase of a road permit.  If Algonquin continues without the requirement to check in for backcountry trips that would enable them to eliminate offices that only serve backcountry users.

 

3/10/2021 10:44 am  #78


Re: Park Fees...future

just off the phone ,, i was talking to a young man from the ministry of the environment ( greg wake) office in peterborough.
    i told  the rep that the camp site remaining feature is a important tool when booking a reservation.  i was told by this rep. that the feature would be put back in place but the ministry of the environment has been too busy to address this situation at this time.  while most ontario parks have been closed and while many people are working from home,, sorry i do not buy that excuse,, get on with it!!   i guess we wait and see !!
     secondly,, i was told that the 4 person flat rate permit increase is in the early stages of a pilot project. and that all feed back from canoe trippers would be welcome.   i was told that if this 377% increase was to happen it would be years down the road after all the facts of the matter have been studied.  algonquin park may not see this program come to fruition???
     i told the rep. not very often does a government agency roll back any fee increases and rule changes once the idea has been floated,,  i told the rep this is not the time for any fee increases. people look to camping and canoeing as a affordable holiday,, not all canadians can afford to jump on a plane for a holiday and deal with exchange rates, taxes, service charges , user fees,, while caught in a precarious work situation making $18.00 per hour.with the every day concerns about heating or eating  !!!
   i do not know what else i can do,, i have tried drive home the point that this situation is just plain silly.
      if you have a thoughts or concerns please contact ZAK   705 761 4747  he would like to hear more feed back???
             this is a topic worthy of dicussion on the" paddling adventure radio" program,,, helping to get the word out.

Last edited by swedish pimple (3/11/2021 8:42 am)

 

3/14/2021 10:35 am  #79


Re: Park Fees...future

A great video from Jon who sums it up quite nicely. Please share this to everyone you know and get them to sign the petition and send emails to the government. The more awareness the better!



 


Producer / Camera Operator - Mark in the Park TV Show
Season 2:  https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpo6wbdVw4qmSqVK8zliRnCbgekagKzpS
Summer 2020:  https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpo6wbdVw4qkWN_4wQlRxNJUkEeCeAKq3
Professional Backcountry Canoe Tripper Wannabe
 

3/23/2021 10:21 am  #80


Re: Park Fees...future


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

3/23/2021 1:00 pm  #81


Re: Park Fees...future

TripperMike wrote:

ShawnD wrote:

I mean a 7 night solo at $40.75 plus booking fee will be over $300.. that is one steep increase.

What is the fine for being caught without a permit?...Bet it isn't $300.

I play by the rules but I'm guessing many won't.

I think the fine is $150.  

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.
 

So I was reading a CTV article about the issue today where they talked to Callan and Hap Wilson. In the article, apparently from the parks numbers they said only 11% are solo trippers and 38% are pairs, so it made sense to move to flat fee's(plus a few new thunder boxes).

So I guess they aren't good at math, because, If I'm correct. Half of the back country traffic is either solo or pairs.  Which means that there is no real majority either way.  Yet they are using those numbers to a degree to justify the flat fee.
Mind blown 


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

3/23/2021 2:17 pm  #82


Re: Park Fees...future

BB wrote:

TripperMike wrote:

ShawnD wrote:

I mean a 7 night solo at $40.75 plus booking fee will be over $300.. that is one steep increase.

What is the fine for being caught without a permit?...Bet it isn't $300.

I play by the rules but I'm guessing many won't.

I think the fine is $150.  

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.
 

So I was reading a CTV article about the issue today where they talked to Callan and Hap Wilson. In the article, apparently from the parks numbers they said only 11% are solo trippers and 38% are pairs, so it made sense to move to flat fee's(plus a few new thunder boxes).

So I guess they aren't good at math, because, If I'm correct. Half of the back country traffic is either solo or pairs.  Which means that there is no real majority either way.  Yet they are using those numbers to a degree to justify the flat fee.
Mind blown 

Seems quite naive to charge half of your customer base more money to justify this system.  It's odd that they have these stats, but don't adjust the flat fee pricing based on group size. 

 

3/23/2021 2:35 pm  #83


Re: Park Fees...future

TripperMike wrote:

BB wrote:

TripperMike wrote:


I think the fine is $150.  

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.
 

So I was reading a CTV article about the issue today where they talked to Callan and Hap Wilson. In the article, apparently from the parks numbers they said only 11% are solo trippers and 38% are pairs, so it made sense to move to flat fee's(plus a few new thunder boxes).

So I guess they aren't good at math, because, If I'm correct. Half of the back country traffic is either solo or pairs.  Which means that there is no real majority either way.  Yet they are using those numbers to a degree to justify the flat fee.
Mind blown 

Seems quite naive to charge half of your customer base more money to justify this system.  It's odd that they have these stats, but don't adjust the flat fee pricing based on group size. 

Odd indeed.  I'm assuming they actually realize this and just don't care or are too lazy to look at other options. 
 


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

3/23/2021 8:25 pm  #84


Re: Park Fees...future

BB wrote:

Odd indeed.  I'm assuming they actually realize this and just don't care or are too lazy to look at other options. 
 

 
Too lazy. The same reason we still can't easily see the number of issued permits on a lake in the reservation system.

 

3/24/2021 7:46 am  #85


Re: Park Fees...future

For anyone who did catch the Canoehound stream last night with Hap Wilson, Jonathan Kelley and Brad Jennings, it was very good. Lots of good discussion looking at both sides.  Also some viewer questions with great points.  Link for anyone who missed it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_hdBSTXAsk


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

Board footera

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