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)

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. 

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!



 

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 

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. 
 

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

Hi Eddy, I think the solo stats are likely bolstered by the backpacking subset. Based on my experience on the trails, there are a substantial amount of solo hikers.

The Parks numbers are almost assuredly skewed lower.  Couples tripping together, 2 families of 4 etc. Arriving in separate cars will most likely make separate bookings now. Under a flat rate there is a big incentive to book together.

So if the Park thinks their avg party size is 4 now, it isn’t. It will be 5 or more maybe under a flat rate fee.

That doesn’t sound like more revenue for AP to me.

In fairness it might for a park like Killarney which is always full with  tons of easy access lakes. The consolidation would free up more sites. This would happen in AP to an extent as well on easy access lakes. Hard to get to lakes in AP are less frequently full so less benefits there.

Again the easy route with no guesswork involved  is just to raise the per person fee.

Last edited by ShawnD (3/25/2021 7:21 am)