MagicPaddler, in the Solo Forum, posted this video explaining the fee increase for Ontario parks.

Price Gouging by Ontario Parks

If this per night fee eventually jacks up Quetico's fees, solo canoeing will become very expensive.

I watched this video last night as I follow that channel. Very disturbing, and it seems an idiotic reason for doing it this way. I hope everyone will make their feelings known to Ontario Parks.

Wow... that is amazing and worth investigating further.

The person in the video is very impressive in how he lays out the pros and cons of both sides. I can see the simplicity of a nightly campsite fee vs. a per person fee. I just can't comprehend how the Ontario Parks management can see this as a fair price structure for all users.

My guess is there will be a change but the structure will get re-worked so a solo paddler or two paddlers don't pay the same as a larger group. Common sense, right? :)

2021 Ontario Parks camping fee schedule

Right now, entering Quetico from the north, the cost is $15.00 per person per night. Entering from the south, the cost is $21.50 per person per night. And those are Canadian dollars, so, with the exchange, it's about $11.25 and $16.15, respectively.

Like any proposed bill in the US, there are all sorts of wild ideas that get discussed, then thrown out before the bill becomes law. I am hopeful that this will happen here, too.

It’s interesting that they are just trialing this in the eastern part of the province and in two of the busier parks. There has to be more motivation behind this proposal that what is revealed in the video.

Well for me this is cheaper. My current nightly fee for my family of 4 is $61. For anyone going in the south entry, groups of 2 or more are saving money. North entry you would have to get to a group of 3.

I have no idea what the motivation is for this is...seems like they are discouraging solo paddlers...didn’t watch the video yet.

T

It was disturbing, especially for one who only solos or rarely tandems.

Am I dreaming Ontario residents used to pay less to go to Quetico? In Jackfish’s link there appears one price point. I swear if you used a Canadian outfitter you got reduced fees at the resident price?

I guess I was wrong...

T

Responding to several points:

As for solo paddlers, it's not such a big deal in Quetico because site scarcity is not a big issue, but for other ON parks, it is a significant issue, particularly during Covid 19 as demand for backcountry camping has soared.

I sympathize with solo trippers, but I don't side with them on this one. If you want the luxury of occupying a site by yourself that could otherwise be used by as many as nine people, you should pay a premium. You can dress up your solo journey in some sort sob-story about affordability that entitles you to your own corner of the wilderness at minimal cost, but you are using an inordinate amount of the resources at the expense of many others who were denied access.

Should a solo paddler petition the gas station for a cheaper rate on fuel because there's only one occupant in the vehicle on the way to Algonquin?
Perhaps he or she needs lodging on the way to their destination? Good luck finding a single room that's half the price of a double. There is a fundamental commercial reality here and the guy in the video is trying to repeal it on a specious premise.

If you want to travel on the cheap, bring companions. There is a very plausible argument here that the government is attempting to use pricing to discourage soloists as a means of assuaging the outsized demand for backcountry camping in the affected parks where site scarcity is a reality.

- Quetico rates looks about the same as last year.

- I see no evidence of resident/non-resident pricing except for seniors and the disabled.

-The entry point stations in the south are relatively expensive to operate. They are supplied by air and staff are also shuttled by air. They require satellite communications including internet and processing of online payments. The people using these entry points should pay more. Not sure how Beaverhouse fits this argument though.

Argo: "Responding to several points:

sympathize with solo-trippers but I don't side with them on this one. If you want the luxury of occupying a site by yourself that could otherwise be used by as many as nine people you should pay a premium. You can dress your solo journey up in some sort sob-story about affordability that entitles you to your own corner of the wilderness at minimal cost but you are using an inordinate amount of the resource at the expense of many others who were denied access."

That is about the most whacked out statement I have ever heard. A sob-story to be a solo camper. Huh?

Shall we talk about the resources a solo camper 'uses'? I can tell you, as a solo camper, that we use far fewer resources in part because we travel alone. But our mindset is also one of extreme minimal use since we have to carry our own load and probably have a sense of LNT that often times larger groups do not have.

Tom

So, solo paddlers should use only shxxty campsites so bigger groups can have the nice ones? Many of the larger, most scenic sites are big ones. Occupying any site is not "luxury". Actually the whole canoe camping idea is a luxury looking at it from a global/social scale.

If someone comes by my site late in the day and would have to portage in the dark to find a campsite I offer to share if the numbers would not exceed regulations. Best not, however, come by at noon and tell me you were planning on that site and I am wasting all that space.

sedges: "So, solo paddlers should use only shxxty campsites so bigger groups can have the nice ones? Many of the larger, most scenic sites are big ones. Occupying any site is not "luxury". Actually the whole canoe camping idea is a luxury looking at it from a global/social scale.


If someone comes by my site late in the day and would have to portage in the dark to find a campsite I offer to share if the numbers would not exceed regulations. Best not, however, come by at noon and tell me you were planning on that site and I am wasting all that space."

Well said!

Massassauga has always been a little more expensive. Temagami is not as crowded as Algonquin and, until lately, was a fractured piecework of PP and Crown Land.

It amuses me that the fees were not imposed on Algonquin. To me this speaks of being a trial balloon and Ontario Parks hopes no one notices much. If they wanted to really raise money and hackles they would have included Algonquin.
Testing the muck.

I am not at all opposed to site fees increasing IF they go for sorely needed PP maintenance, but this plan is insane.

tumblehome: "

Argo: "Responding to several points:

sympathize with solo-trippers but I don't side with them on this one. If you want the luxury of occupying a site by yourself that could otherwise be used by as many as nine people you should pay a premium. You can dress your solo journey up in some sort sob-story about affordability that entitles you to your own corner of the wilderness at minimal cost but you are using an inordinate amount of the resource at the expense of many others who were denied access."

That is about the most whacked out statement I have ever heard. A sob-story to be a solo camper. Huh?

Shall we talk about the resources a solo camper 'uses'? I can tell you, as a solo camper that we use far fewer resources in part because we travel alone. But our mindset is also one if extreme minimal use since we have to carry our own load, and probably have a sense of LNT that often times larger groups do not have.

Tom"

Affordability, fairness and gouging were three of his main points in the video. Affordability was first.

Price gouging - if larger groups pay less while smaller groups pay more, that suggests the measure is not conclusively revenue positive. Therefore, how is it price gouging?

By "resource" I mean campsite as a "unit". That is the essence of this debate. And back country sites (unlike drive-in sites) are currently reserved irrespective of the number of occupants - in other words, without consideration to revenue nor the opportunity for public participation. A solo paddler uses the same quantity of this resource as a larger group at a fraction of the cost. If it costs X dollars to operate a park and it operates at full capacity, cost-recovery or profitability models would be laser-focused on average group size and obviously small groups would be disadvantaged by a pricing policy meant to optimize that.

Making the point about the relatively benign impact on the condition of this resource by soloists puts more meat on the bones of your argument than anything I heard in the video. But at this point I don't believe it's germane to the government's primary objective even though it's a reasonable consideration.

Yellowcanoe makes the point that Algonquin and Killarney are not included and that's why this looks like a trial balloon. That's probably correct. It may also be the case that if, post Covid, demand for backcountry camping reverts to it's pre-Covid levels, this may all become moot. Notwithstanding any of that, applying a premium to solo paddlers (or smaller groups) in Quetico would be addressing a solution to a problem that doesn't currently exist there.

The majority of folks here frequent the BW/Quetico. The fee increase appears to try to address the eastern parks that are more heavily used and that have actual campsites that are maintained/reserved for usage. The maintenance and improvements would seem to warrant in-kind fees, especially with higher usage. Disclaimer - I have not been to Tamagami, Algonquin, Massasauga, etc., just Quetico and Wabakimi. In either of those parks, there is NO risk of ever running out of campsites - because THERE ARE NONE. That is to say no designated campsites - you can camp ANYWHERE - and there are no camp improvements or maintenance going on. Of course there are the traditional, existing spots, which are the preferred ones. Usage is controlled by limiting daily access via entry permits, not by how many campsites there are - THANKFULLY! So, this isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison. If every entry permit were used every single day, I really doubt there would be a shortage of available existing sites anywhere in Quetico - unless perhaps everyone stayed on the entry lakes.

The video poster is John Kelly of Backcountry Angling Ontario (posts lots of his personal trip videos on youtube), a Canadian. I can understand his perspective. I believe a usage system should be fair while still supporting the lands and resources we love. Hopefully Ontario Parks sees a tiered usage fee as the fair route based on the resource being addressed. If you have followed the usage over the past 20 years or so - BWCA or Quetico (2020 not withstanding....), overall usage has been consistently falling in both numbers of parties and size of parties. I recall annual visitor numbers of 250K and 50K respectively around 1999 and have seen more recent numbers around 150K and 15K. Inordinately higher fees will see reduced overall usage and thus even lower funds generated. You're not going to see increased funds collected for Quetico by raising fees - just the opposite and the only way to raise total revenue is to raise usage, particularly by larger groups. It will be interesting to see what happens to those numbers post COVID, especially the BW numbers once the border opens up again.

I honestly don't think Quetico solo or small groups are going to get stung by those fee increases.

portagedog09: "...the eastern parks...have actual campsites that are maintained/reserved for usage. "

Slight correction - in Algonquin and Killarney you do not reserve a specific back country site. You earmark a lake, but it's first-come-first-serve when you arrive.

I found out today that, yes, this is a pilot program with the Massasauga and Temagami parks. Ontario Parks is introducing a per campsite fee model for backcountry camping in those areas to be consistent with their car camping fee model. They will be reviewing the pilot program at the end of the 2021 season.

The long-term plan for this backcountry fee structure across all of Ontario Parks has not been determined. Fees for Quetico, Woodland Caribou and Wabakimi for 2021 have not changed.

The way I've always heard it is that Q, WCPP and WPP (and most likely Opasquia) are run differently than the southern and northeastern provincial parks. Because of that, I think there is hope that fee changes, if any, will be modest for those parks.

Now if we could just be allowed to pay those fees in 2021.

Thanks for researching this Jackfish. That's brings some clarity to the situation. Let's hope for at least late 2021.