"DanPM", that's how it worked out for me, I did check the forum last year and some people were saying they got call with the park reservation people insisting but when they called me I just said no and held my reservation.

 

Moonman wrote:

Why not just say, due to ice coverage, we will evaluate individual access points daily, allowing access as conditions warrant. This is what we all do and in fact happened in past years, without making a statement to that effect. Its the blanket closing that concerns people, because we know what governments and bureacracy can sometimes be like.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought they did do something like that last year, opening up some access points a little before others based on what sections of the park were ice-free?

AlgonquinGuy wrote:

Seems like a logical choice to me.

I disagree.

The fact that this is a 'new' protocol implies that generations before us would disagree as well. If an individual personally thinks it's too risky, they have the option of not going in. You need to be able to make that call. It's fairly simple. But to close an entire park system based on the safety opinion is painting everyone with the same skills brush - which does not paint an accurate picture of the general canoeing community.

If it's about risk, every single time you step foot in the backcountry you are taking a risk with your life - regardless of the time of year. Granted early spring and late fall would be extra risky, but does the necessitate the closure of an entire park system to everyone?  Nope. What about those who are well-seasoned, experienced and prepared? Or those willing to change locations to an ice-free section of the Park? Don't get me wrong, anything can happen to anyone at any time - but there is a difference in people who know what is needed during the shoulder seasons, and those who go out with the same gear/clothing they would take on a mid-July trip.

As with everything else in life, it comes down to punishing everyone for the lack of good judgement of a few.

If this was normal protocol I wouldn't say a peep - my problem stems from the fact that for 119 years Ice-Out has been a reason to celebrate - in the last 4 years Ice-Out has been a game of cat and mouse with people's vacation time and reservations. What makes the last 4 years so significant? If safety/rescue operations are the primary concern, why hasn't this been the norm for twelve decades? This is the issue. Someone new thinks they know what's best for a very large group of people. What's best for a few, isn't best for everyone.

If the ice is mostly gone, call it a day and open the Park.

Finally, and I'd hate to admit this, but even with these safety closures, sadly people have still died in Algonquin during the last couple of spring openers - well after the ice was gone. So really - who are we saving with the early closures?

Okay - I'll leave it at that until they announce the 2017 delayed opening.

DanPM wrote:

Moonman wrote:

Why not just say, due to ice coverage, we will evaluate individual access points daily, allowing access as conditions warrant. This is what we all do and in fact happened in past years, without making a statement to that effect. Its the blanket closing that concerns people, because we know what governments and bureacracy can sometimes be like.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought they did do something like that last year, opening up some access points a little before others based on what sections of the park were ice-free?

 
Hi Dan you are correct, sort of, in that they did say sometjing to that effect, and in fact, are saying similar things now, but they are also saying there is a blanket ban till the 28th as noted. Also last year, they were all confused, no one knew what was going on. Believe me I was there for a trip that week, and some of you may remember at the time, I was discussing with fellow board members other options, because lakes were open along the corridor and most of the backcountry (even though backcountry was banned). They were doing the helicopter fly-bys every few days, and on the last one everyone could clearly see that 95% of the park was ice free. My trip started the next day, so even though nothing was officially open yet, our group headed up to the park and crossed our fingers. That morning we were discussing options, some park staff said things were still closed, as did all the outfitters, but one extremely nice woman at the west gate office decided to issue us a permit....she said lakes were clear and that was that. We got the feeling there was not an 'official' official opening, but that she thought the way things were going was a bit crazy, and that the word would come down very soon, so we got our permits and were off. Now this was just my personal assessment of the situation, perhaps offical word had indeed come down. So all I am saying is that there was nothing wrong with the approach that had been taken over the last umpteen years and that the current wording of the ban, coupled with the general move of a lot of governments to ban everything (playing with balls at Some Toronto schools, banning tobogganing in Hamilton etc) does not give one the feeling that assessments will always be made from common sense perspective. In the end I am hoping things will work out, and perhaps my prior post sounded a bit too harsh and critical, but really, if lakes are ice covered and access roads are washed out/impassable, then its a no go. If ice is not a factor, there should be no problem....we hope.

Moonman.

If someone can explain to me why I can't hike the Western Uplands because Opeongo isn't ice free than I will understand the logic of a blanket all " backcountry sites" until then it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.. 

You say yellowcanoe is being punished, that would only be true if he was entitled to use the park and was then being prevented. We have no entitlement. They let us use the park. 

Still, I agree that closing off backpacking trails is stupid.

The change in practice has certainly been annoying particularly because of the park wide approach and because the timing/duration is far too liberal. Choosing not to issue permits for hiking trails is like cancelling outdoor recess because 1 kid in the school didn't wear rubber boots on a rainy day. Waiting until the last lake in the park is ice free before issuing permits for lakes south of 60 that have been open for 4 or 5 days already is just passing up revenue. 

Communicating the ice out status is a good thing. Clearly stating which access points are open or not is a good thing.

I think most of the annoyance comes down to how it is communicated. Saying that you don't expect Rock Lake to be ice free by April 23'rd and that you recommend people planning a trip in that area evaluate alternatives such as staying at one of the open campgrounds is a helpful message. In contrast a blanket statement that no permits will be issued until at least April 28th comes across as much more authoritarian rather than collaborative and leaves the impression that whoever made the choice really isn't interested in making your trip a success.  

AlgonquinGuy wrote:

We have no entitlement. They let us use the park.

I'm fairly sure you're just pulling my leg because paying customers definitely have an entitlement to what they have paid for, or intend to pay for, standard contract law. 'They' do not 'let us use the park', 'they' charge a fee for its use and that fee automatically grants entitlement. We are not 'allowed in' as a measure of good gesture or because 'they' are in a good mood, we pay to be there. We pay for its operation via many channels. This isnt private property with a nice owner, this is a place set aisde that we all pay for, directly and indirectly. 
 

Last edited by Peek (4/14/2016 9:51 am)