West Koko Pond - Sent 2/13/2022 10:05 pm - from goneagainjon
Hi boknows, have you ever bushwhacked in there? Thx, Jon

Just my 2 cents that Jon does not have "mobility" or "limitation" issues.

West Koko Pond is at end of Koko Creek that runs into Proulx Lake.  My reply is listed below...

Re: West Koko Pond - Sent 2/19/2022 2:21 pm - to goneagainjon
No.....I've been up Koko Creek until it ends. After this, it is all swamp....

Bo
 

Last edited by boknows (2/27/2022 3:17 pm)

FWIW, I ran a couple of polls about preference for site specific vs lake based reservations over on my Algonquin Twitter and Instagram pages over the past 24 hours. Got about 500 responses. The majority of people seem to prefer the current way of booking, but it’s not a huge majority. I was actually a bit surprised. Tbh, I think it’s only a matter of time before we go to site specific, especially because it looks like there wouldn’t be overwhelming pushback against that model.

Sigh.

ShawnD wrote:

AlgonquinLakes wrote:

FWIW, I ran a couple of polls about preference for site specific vs lake based reservations over on my Algonquin Twitter and Instagram pages over the past 24 hours. Got about 500 responses. The majority of people seem to prefer the current way of booking, but it’s not a huge majority. I was actually a bit surprised. Tbh, I think it’s only a matter of time before we go to site specific, especially because it looks like there wouldn’t be overwhelming pushback against that model.

Sigh.

 
Saw your poll Drew and responded. Thanks for doing that!

My response to a site specific system will be to just stop going. I know that sounds a bit like I’m taking my ball and going home but it will be the last straw for me.
Backcountry camping in Algonquin will just have moved too far away from what I’m looking for when I’m out there. I can only imagine how someone like Bob feels about the changes.

For me backcountry camping is at its best when it’s a challenge when I have pushed myself and when there is the intrigue of the unknown. It’s supposed to be an adventure after all. If I want a spoonfed holiday I’ll sign up for some tour bus trip somewhere so I can listen to the same jokes the guide has been telling for last 10 years. Not my cup of tea.

Having never canoed in other Parks other than AP, what Park would you suggest for a challenging and adventurous canoe trip?
 

Last edited by boknows (2/27/2022 6:26 pm)

Last edited by ShawnD (2/27/2022 6:34 pm)

ShawnD wrote:

AlgonquinLakes wrote:

FWIW, I ran a couple of polls about preference for site specific vs lake based reservations over on my Algonquin Twitter and Instagram pages over the past 24 hours. Got about 500 responses. The majority of people seem to prefer the current way of booking, but it’s not a huge majority. I was actually a bit surprised. Tbh, I think it’s only a matter of time before we go to site specific, especially because it looks like there wouldn’t be overwhelming pushback against that model.

Sigh.

 
Saw your poll Drew and responded. Thanks for doing that!

My response to a site specific system will be to just stop going. I know that sounds a bit like I’m taking my ball and going home but it will be the last straw for me.
Backcountry camping in Algonquin will just have moved too far away from what I’m looking for when I’m out there. I can only imagine how someone like Bob feels about the changes.

For me backcountry camping is at its best when it’s a challenge when I have pushed myself and when there is the intrigue of the unknown. It’s supposed to be an adventure after all. If I want a spoonfed holiday I’ll sign up for some tour bus trip somewhere so I can listen to the same jokes the guide has been telling for last 10 years. Not my cup of tea.

@Drew my preference is for lake-specific booking over site-specific, but I wouldn't go as far to say that I would stop camping in Algonquin if they implement site-specific bookings. The price increases would be a much bigger deterrent for myself as a solo camper.

I think people often forget that while the experienced canoe trippers may be the most vocal with their opinions, we don't represent the average park user. Like your poll showed, it honestly doesn't surprise me that many people, who represent the 'average' camper, may prefer the predictable itinerary that comes with booking specific campsites.


@Shawn I've seen many people share the same opinion as you, that it takes away from the adventure of tripping and would likely draw them away from Algonquin. We all trip with a certain level of comforts and certainties right now. Maps like Jeff's Map with the significant amount of detail increases planning capabilities while taking away some of the unknown and adventure. Same thing can be said about the PCI reports, my own campsite / trip reports, and all the other reports on the web. Also the increasing cell signal throughout the park. The main difference is you have a choice to avoid those other comforts (Jeff's Map, PCI reports, cell service, etc.) but this site-specific booking, if implemented, wouldn't give you the choice. But even with lake-specific bookings, a certain level of the unknown is eliminated because you already have an itinerary that you need to follow. If this is the last straw for you I obviously can't argue against that, but I think many people will just accept it as one more thing to add to the list. The whole modern tripping experience in Algonquin, from booking specific lakes to using detailed maps and researching routes beforehand etc. has already stripped away much of the unknown.

Site-specific bookings from a safety perspective is a whole different story though. I definitely feel that there is much higher risk of injury or death in the park when people feel forced to camp on specific campsites. Sending an inexperienced group across Opeongo during whitecaps just to reach their specific campsite is a recipe for disaster. And based on like 75% of videos I see on YouTube where people blatantly break the rules and camp off permit (and for some reason decide to talk about it in their videos?), I can only imagine how many confrontations there will be when people arrive at a campsite already occupied by a squatter.

trippythings wrote:

I think people often forget that while the experienced canoe trippers may be the most vocal with their opinions, we don't represent the average park user. Like your poll showed, it honestly doesn't surprise me that many people, who represent the 'average' camper, may prefer the predictable itinerary that comes with booking specific campsites.
 .

You’re bang on with this I think. I imagine that the vast majority of people using APP don’t have the level of experience or investment in the Park that most AA frequent flyers would have. Planning a first or second (or third or fourth) canoe trip is daunting. I would think that anything to make the level of unknown a little less would be very popular.

Interestingly enough, the results from my polls bore this out. The one I put up on Facebook, where I would say i probably have the greatest number of casual camper followers as compared to the rest of my feeds, was overwhelmingly in favour of site specific bookings (it also had the lowest number of respondents, so that skews it a bit).

IMHO, this is a trivial thing for anyone to care that much about.  I don’t think it’s a good move - because my experience in APP for the last 30 years has been a wonderful adventure from childhood to raising my own family canoeing.  I can only imagine the changes Bob and Diane have seen, or the swift family, and certainly how things have changed for Jake Pigeon throughout the years.

The park is in southern Ontario, population growth and accessibility to places like the Mass and the Gonq, Killarney, etc. means more regulation and/or ‘streamlining’ systems.  It sucks, but it is what it is.  More people now than ever are interested in this thing that I once considered a weird hobby that few of my friends or colleagues knew about, but that is no longer the case. 

I’ve said it on here before and I’ll say it again.  Go further north, spend more time in new regions.  Drive that extra 2-3 hours if you’re looking for solitude and wilderness that isn’t so controlled. 

The convenience of APP is a big factor in why we all love it, along with the beauty of a park so close to our regular lives.  And that is exactly why we will continue to see things like this happen.

Drew, I responded to your poll, and I was also shocked at the almost 50/50 split decision.  That alone tells me this is something the general user wants/needs/doesn’t know that they don’t want yet.

The park has become less wild for me lately and I utilize it for what it is.  A wilderness paradise close to home that is regulated by our government.  Hopefully we don’t go full on but like I said, it is what it is.

My wife and I travel light and simple and manage to get into much of the park making sensible decisions based on conditions and our limitations.  We've never had a confrontation over a campsite.  We have had much good information from other parties on availability of sites just for asking.

We've been windbound, had daylong heavy cold rain and snow, and ill and injured campers.  Also had days when big lakes were smooth as glass.  

Uncle Phil's three priorities for tripping were safety, comfort and education.  "Get to site x" wont move to the top of the list for us.

Yes, Johnmaclane, site-reserved designation of a number of campsites within a predictable, safe most-weather paddle from an access point would provide a high likelyhood that users could actually get to the specific site that suits their needs.  Sort of like walk-in sites some parks have.


Please, no site specific reservations in backcountry.

George, 
Ennismore

Interesting to know the evolution of the reservation system at Algonquin, which was really driven by increased demand to a limited supply.  Unfortunately I see more of that.  Don't shoot the messenger! ;-)

I started backcountry camping in Algonquin almost 30 years ago & the population in Ontario has increased 4 Million during that time (about 40%).  It's not a stretch of the imagination to say that the population growth has not been matched by increased availability of campsites.  When you throw in the pandemic & many people discovering that they don't like being locked up & access to nature is important, there is ever growing surge pressure to access campsites/nature.

With the increased demand on a limited resource, inevitably this will cause further changes to both the reservation system & increased fees....

I fully expect shock & awe with regards to fees due to ongoing ever rising taxes (lets face it fees are just another form of taxation), supersized inflation, and pressure to make Ontario Parks self funding.  Whether these fees are just a percentage increase or something worse (eg. flat fee backcountry introduced at other parks), get ready to take the punishment...

In a way I also eventually see changes to be site specific booking as it is an easy way to increase occupancy in Algonquin, not that I am advocating that, but namely Ontario Parks wants more revenue & site specific booking increases backcountry occupancy (supply).  For example, for anyone that has been backcountry camping enough, the "unbooked" sites on lakes are important for several reasons:
a) If every site were booked it prevents you having to paddle around the entire lake to find the last free site, which could be hours on bigger lakes, which can be tough to add at the end of a long day
b) Emergencies: change of plans due to being wind bound, fatigue, overestimating your abilities/distance that you can cover, etc
So it is good to have a few extra unbooked sites.

Site specific booking does not address point "b", but it does help to address point "a" (just paddle to your site, no need to hunt all over the lake...).  Again I am not advocating site specific booking, but rather I see it as a result of demand pressure, Ontario Parks revenue pressure, etc.

I know a guy who does not fish anymore as a "protest" to having to pay for a fishing license when it used to be free. Unfortunately I feel like he is the one who really lost out by not continuing something he used to enjoy. Death & more taxes we can't avoid, no amount of "protest" is going to change that...

rgcmce wrote:

Let me jump in here.  I'm not going frame a long coherent and logically consistent argument.  I'm just going to make a few observations.

I'm on the cusp of transitioning from my mid 70s to my late 70s.  I'm no longer what you could reasonably call fit.  My capabilities decline enough on a year over year basis that it is essentially impossible for me to meaningfully know what I currently may or not be capable of.  I can no longer plan.  Can I make Narrowbag the first day or will I crap out on the first or second portage?  Impossible to tell.  For me, in my physical condition, any reservation system is an impediment to my enjoyment of the park.  A site specific reservation would make my situation much worse.  All because of my current physical abilities and their decline.

I would much prefer to go back to no reservations whatsoever.

But that's not realistic

Historically, when the crowding became too much they introduced a system whereby each access point had a daily quota of back-country permits to issue -- at first only on holiday weekends.  You had to tell them where you planned on going but that was only so they would know where to send the search team if someone report you missing.

The cries for more control increased so they gave in made a percentage of the daily input quota reserveable (50%?)  The rest of the quota remained first come first serve.

The resultant crowding near the access points became an issue and they introduced a one night limit on camping near access points.  So there is a historic precedent for a two tier system -- controls near the access points but not farther in.

And then the whole system went to hell in a hand basket and they dumped the access quotas and introduced the present system.

In the "old days" you knew nothing of what awaited you.  You knew approximately where portages were but but you had no advance knowledge of campsites.  There were no accessible trip reports and campsites were not marked on the maps.  Little by little more information became available and in the process destroyed whatever was left of the wilderness feeling.  This is why I am not a fan of the PCI database (sorry Barry)

Anyway, compared to how it was in the '60s and '70s, it IS Disneyland.  (But on the other hand back then you could take your outboard motor anywhere.  I think that High Falls on the Nipissing is wilder now than it was then.  But when motors were restricted in the interior, people argued loudly that the physically challenged were being denied their rights.)

So where do I stand? I can live with the present system even though I don't like it.  If they change to a site specific system, I'll cope.  (I'm not fit enough to follow Martin's lead.)  But I expect I will occasionally go off permit as I currently do.  But thoughtfully and it's never led to a conflict.

Some old fart who still gets out there (sort of).