Algonquin Adventures / Park Fees...future

**Posted by BB** 3/02/2021 2:30 pm

Great point Tripper. With larger groups they would actually be losing money vs the old (current APP) system.

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.

**Posted by AlgonquinLakes** 3/02/2021 2:36 pm

This is a bummer. I guess I should be booking as many solo trips as possible this summer and start planning with 8 of my closest friends for next year.

I agree that this is going to have the unintended (I assume unintended) consequence of pushing people towards camping with larger groups and that in turn is going to result in more wear and tear on the campsites.

I also agree that I don't know how much more revenue this is going to drive. The temptation to go in solo and just take your chance is going to be high, particularly for someone looking to do a week or ten day trip who doesn't feel like spending $300-$400 in site fees.

**Posted by TripperMike** 3/02/2021 2:44 pm

BB wrote:
Great point Tripper. With larger groups they would actually be losing money vs the old (current APP) system.

Exactly. And as Martin and Shawn both pointed out, large groups will have much more impact on resources than solo or tandem travelers while potentially harnessing a 'cheat the system' mentality and overloading campsites.

I'm sure most people would agree that solo travelers are usually well experienced and proficient with LNT and respect for the area, and shouldn't be charged almost 4 times what it would cost a group of 4.

**Posted by swedish pimple** 3/02/2021 2:51 pm

i just got off of the phone from talking to my m.p.p. lori scott's office,, i was told to write the minister in charge and explain the situation ,, the increase did seem outta line with this rep,,,
phone this office greg wake operations and development office ontario parks m.n.r. office peterborough
705 927- 2861 he might of signed off on this increase??

Last edited by swedish pimple (3/02/2021 3:25 pm)

**Posted by BB** 3/02/2021 3:06 pm

Here is a link to the minister in charge. He just happens to be in my riding.

https://www.ola.org/en/members/all/jeff-yurek

swedish pimple wrote:
i just got off of the phone from talking to my m.p.p. lori scott's office,, i was told to write the minister in charge and explain the situation ,, the increase did seem outta line with this rep,,,

**Posted by Zemantics** 3/02/2021 5:03 pm

Old news but still worth discussing
https://www.myccr.com/phpbbforum/viewtopic.php?f=107&t=47853

You can see some of the conversations that have been had last year on this topic to see what conclusions you can draw from it. Kind of sucks regardless of what lens you look at it through -- some recreationalists are about to get hosed and don't even know it

**Posted by MartinG** 3/02/2021 5:26 pm

Thanks for sharing that Bryce. We got a thousand people signing a petition against this change last year. Not sure what impact it had. Maybe calling/writing Mr. Yurek directly is the way to go.

**Posted by PaPaddler** 3/03/2021 7:06 am

Revenue is a two factor concept - it includes income and expenses. The expenses that an agency incurs in creating a reservation (that cost includes all components that have not been amortized like personnel, equipment, utilities, buildings, healthcare, etc.) is roughly equivalent for a solo person or a group. Creating a reservation for a solo camper generates far less income and a lower profit margin for the park.

Creating a model that is 'one size fits all' is a simple solution to streamline expenses and enhance operational efficiency. It may not be palatable to those who leveraged the system to their advantage (and the park's financial disadvantage) in the past but it now creates a 'level' playing field that establishes a single fee for the resource, regardless of how you choose to leverage it.

The solo camper business that the park 'loses' represents their lowest margin income of all reservations. For them to trim the lower revenue bookings makes good business sense. There are many arguments that can be promoted around the social impacts but they are founded upon an entirely different set of factors than the economic ones...and money drives many, many decisions at the end of the day.

**Posted by ShawnD** 3/03/2021 7:35 am

Gee I wish someone had informed me along time ago that I’ve been leveraging the system to my advantage all these years.

Think of all the time wasted with me not feeling a greater sense of shame and ignominy.

**Posted by Peek** 3/03/2021 8:38 am

PaPaddler wrote:
It may not be palatable to those who leveraged the system to their advantage (and the park's financial disadvantage) in the past but it now creates a 'level' playing field that establishes a single fee for the resource, regardless of how you choose to leverage it.

Citation needed, Who is leveraging what?

This whole post feels like you're either trolling or its just a plain old reddit shitpost.

**Posted by RCSpartan** 3/03/2021 8:55 am

I read it as solo campers bring in the least amount of Park revenue vs a relatively fixed expense associated to each reservation. Seems to me to be a fact more than an attempt at a troll but I may be wrong.

**Posted by Peek** 3/03/2021 9:09 am

RCSpartan wrote:
I read it as solo campers bring in the least amount of Park revenue vs a relatively fixed expense associated to each reservation. Seems to me to be a fact more than an attempt at a troll but I may be wrong.

Agree - but where is the 'leveraging' in this? Who is benefitting more, and who less, based on said leveraging?

**Posted by RCSpartan** 3/03/2021 9:15 am

I interpret it as solo campers get the best deal in the context of the Park's current business model but I don't want to speak for PA.

**Posted by ShawnD** 3/03/2021 9:15 am

It is the tone of the post that rubs me the wrong way to be honest.

To tell some of the solo trippers on here who have been caring for the Park for decades. Living by LNT, educating and teaching others.

Being some of the greatest stewards of the Park out there that they have somehow been leveraging the fee system for their own benefit and are now unprofitable fat to be cut from the carcass of big business.

And for a moderator to be posting it.

In the most polite way possible. No thank you.

**Posted by BB** 3/03/2021 9:16 am

Maybe it's the wording, but I would argue no one was taking advantage of anything. You make it sound like they are taking advantage of some loophole when they are not. I'm sure that was not your intention, just the way it sounded.

While a flat fee is easy to apply, it has short comings and will actually lose the park money on bookings over 4 people vs the old system. As someone mentioned previous, a small increase in the per person rate would have appeased the Gov't and not rocked the boat on a, perhaps less profitable, but still large number of solo and tandem paddlers.

PaPaddler wrote:
Revenue is a two factor concept - it includes income and expenses. The expenses that an agency incurs in creating a reservation (that cost includes all components that have not been amortized like personnel, equipment, utilities, buildings, healthcare, etc.) is roughly equivalent for a solo person or a group. Creating a reservation for a solo camper generates far less income and a lower profit margin for the park.

Creating a model that is 'one size fits all' is a simple solution to streamline expenses and enhance operational efficiency. It may not be palatable to those who leveraged the system to their advantage (and the park's financial disadvantage) in the past but it now creates a 'level' playing field that establishes a single fee for the resource, regardless of how you choose to leverage it.

The solo camper business that the park 'loses' represents their lowest margin income of all reservations. For them to trim the lower revenue bookings makes good business sense. There are many arguments that can be promoted around the social impacts but they are founded upon an entirely different set of factors than the economic ones...and money drives many, many decisions at the end of the day.

**Posted by Peek** 3/03/2021 9:18 am

RCSpartan wrote:
I interpret it as solo campers get the best deal in the context of the Park's current business model but I don't want to speak for PA.

How though? If solo, the cost is $12.43 per night. If in a group, the cost to me is still $12.43 per night.

That's like say movie theatres lose money if someone goes by themself. You see where I'm going with this? Where is the leveraging?

Last edited by Peek (3/03/2021 9:19 am)

**Posted by Peek** 3/03/2021 9:20 am

BB wrote:
Maybe it's the wording, but I would argue no one was taking advantage of anything. You make it sound like they are taking advantage of some loophole when they are not.

This. Hence why I asked for an example of the leveraging taking place. Show me where a soloist is at an advantage.

Last edited by Peek (3/03/2021 9:20 am)