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. 

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?

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. 

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)

Getting more visibility.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ontario-parks-testing-flat-fees-forcing-many-backcountry-campers-to-pay-at-least-three-times-more-for-sites-1.5358426

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. 

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.