I'm far from an economist but do have a basic understanding of supply and demand. It seems a lot of angst is generated because demand for certain permits far exceeds supply and there is neither a price mechanism nor the ability to increase supply to meet demand. The same concept applies to the state park campground reservation system. Both situations don't have market solutions so people turn to elaborate (and underhanded?) methods to get what they want.

I get that the permit system is not designed to function as a market, but thinking about it like this has helped me understand the issue. Or maybe I'm missing something important, oversimplifying things, and just deceiving myself? If I am conceptualizing things fairly accurately, what are potential solutions?

Hopefully I don't get flamed too hard for this. I know most people just want to get out and enjoy nature and not think about everything in terms of $. And that's my perspective too but last summer and the lead up to the summer of 2021 have got me asking what might be done to alleviate the supply-demand problem. Anybody have thoughts along these lines?

What really got me thinking about this was the recent shift made by a Very Famous National Park from 1st Come 1st Served to a reservation system for camping at a Very Famous campground. These campsites cost $20 per night but I'm certain there are people who would pay upwards of $100 per night to camp here. And until this year, the only way to gain access to this resource was to show up early in the morning to see if anybody was packing up to leave and vacating a campsite. Now people can go online months in advance, and if they have the right skills and mindset, block off several weeks for multiple campsites and, paying only a minimal fee, trim back their reservations to match what they're actually planning to use. I'm sure there are going to be people who didn't realize they were going to a 100% reservation-based system and will show up this summer planning to play the 1st Come 1st Served game only to discover they're essentially locked out. It will be interesting to see how NPS negotiates this minefield.

thistlekicker: "Now people can go online months in advance, and if they have the right skills and mindset, block off several weeks for multiple campsites and, paying only a minimal fee, trim back their reservations to match what they're actually planning to use. "

This exact scenario has been playing out with a certain popular campsite in Sylvania for quite some time. It's annoying, but part of the "game". I refuse to be a participant in that type of duping the system.

Interesting thoughts. Ontario charges more for Quetico permits to enter from the border side of the park, which has significantly higher usage. So the idea of "market pricing" is not entirely foreign (well, in one sense at least, lol). Would it be feasible/advisable/fair for the FS to charge more for permits for more popular EP's.?

Maybe create a secondary market for buying/selling permit reservations? (Yes, before I get flamed, I know that's a stupid idea).

From the other two recent threads, it sounds like the FS is trying to do something to reduce abuses of the reservation system.

There are 2 sides to this. One is the barrier that cost can have on younger or lower income individuals. It's hard to get into something if the cost is a significant factor. The other is how it could be used to encourage people to use lesser used entry points. I myself started without much money and if the permit cost was significant, then I wouldn't be going to the boundary waters like I am now. I would never support a change that would make the boundary waters, or portions of it, wealth restrictive.

On the other hand, some permits being a little cheaper than others would be a decent motivator to get people to use those entry points more and spread out the traffic. It would also be nice to get a better idea of how much or how little some of these entry points are really used relative to the usage they are intended for. The side effect of more traffic in some of the area that are currently under utilized, would be more well defined portages and maybe some better campsites from the foot traffic compacting the ground and keeping it from being overgrown.

In my opinion, parks and organized wilderness areas that are crown, state or federal lands should not be profit centres. But they should be operated to cover the cost of resource management. I don't believe I have a right to ask someone else to subsidize my canoe trip holiday. Which is not to say I won't take it if it's available. But I won't complain if prices are adjusted to reflect the cost of my visit either.

Also, I am against the concept of underpricing access to parks for the reason that it tends to attract visitors who will value the resource less than its intrinsic value. Do we want that?

One caveat though: I don't believe you can condition the people to a system of entitlement over a long period of time such that it becomes an expectation or a norm - part of the background so-to-speak - and then abruptly remove it. It took time to get their and it takes time to get out. An adjustment period of ten to fifteen years would be desirable.

Another aspect of this: because these systems are essentially non-responsive to supply and demand issues, there's little avenue for increasing supply in response to increasing demand.

This is probably less relevant to the BWCA - increasing the size of the wilderness has been kicked around from time to time and is always met with strong opposition. And while there might be a few opportunities to carve out new campsites, it's not likely to materially affect the supply-demand issue.

But take State Park campgrounds as an example. They're incredibly popular (at least during certain periods of time), and in my estimation there are substantial opportunities to add new camping facilities given the available space and infrastructure. But because user fees don't come close to covering the cost of operation, increasing the supply of campsites requires Parks & Trails to dip into already limited state budget resources. So even though the demand is there, there's limited mechanisms to translate this into increased supply.

naturboy12: "

thistlekicker: "Now people can go online months in advance, and if they have the right skills and mindset, block off several weeks for multiple campsites and, paying only a minimal fee, trim back their reservations to match what they're actually planning to use. "

This exact scenario has been playing out with a certain popular campsite in Sylvania for quite some time. It's annoying, but part of the "game". I refuse to be a participant in that type of duping the system. "

This is exactly why I almost always go to Sylvania in the off (ice out) season. Last fall I went for three nights in early November and I am awaiting ice out this spring. I was surprised that last November mid-week my first two campsite picks were already taken. I have been going there since 1975 and by 1980 started going during the off season and until the last few years it was uncommon to see other campers.

Very interesting discussion topic. I will be interested to hear other points of view.

I believe demand will continue to increase for a long time. Maybe a lottery system like Mt Whitney Permits and other wilderness areas.
To alleviate demand I do my part by telling people camping is difficult, expensive, lots of insects and bad weather, a little dangerous, no internet and it makes you feel gross and you smell really bad after a couple of days without a shower.

A very recent conversation with someone who I feel like should know, but prefers not to be named, told me that the only thing he has heard is that there has been discussion on reducing the number of permits allowed for each entry. The impact on the wilderness in recent years has been high, with last year being very bad. There has been some discussion on closing some of the sites that have been heavily used in order to let them "recover" or more specifically let the vegetation and trees grow back. He doubts they would make any new sites, as the main goal is to minimize the signs of human impact. I guess they may consider limiting how many can camp near entry points, kind of like they do on Horse Lake, forcing people to disperse and go further in. For the most part they are concerned about preserving the wilderness, not about accommodating more people, or giving people more room, convenience, etc. The hope is that the requirement to watch all the LNT videos and the end of the pandemic will help alleviate the situation. There is no profit for the government in the permit fees. Their job is to protect the wilderness and to help people to enjoy it with minimum impact or modifications to it. The main reason I inquired was the threads about "improving" the campsites or making them better able to accommodate larger groups. I was curious about what they thought. Although I gather that not everyone in authority agrees, It seems that the LAST thing they are worried about is accommodating more people or improving the campsites as that is pretty much the opposite of what the wilderness needs. I tend to agree, although I do want everyone who wants to experience it to be able to...as long as they "get it" and follow the rules. Canada is even more protective. A previous Quetico superintendent said he would completely close that park before he allowed the type of impact that the BWCAW experienced. I have no idea of the accuracy of this info, but like I said, they should know. It will be interesting to see what happens. What is sad is even as the number of visitors to the BW went down the last decade or so, the impact has gone up because of the type of usage.

mgraber, that is extremely interesting. Even if partially conjecture, it's insider conjecture.

You mention the Horse Lake restriction...one could really take that idea and run with it. Let's say an EP has 10 daily permits. Three or four are wide-open. One or two don't allow you to camp in the lake or lakes right by the EP. a couple more push that requirement even further back, and so on.

Or perhaps even better - you can't camp on the lakes by the EP until day 4 of your permit. So folks exiting can lay-up...

Lots of ways to skin the canoe.

Interesting. Buying permits on Stub-Hub is intriguing. Probably reducing the supply slightly and going to a pure lottery system which shouldn't discriminate on wealth/income is the likely solution. The years you can't get a permit, go elsewhere. after Canoecopia presentation I'm leaning towards buying a copy of Kevin Callen's The Lost Canoe Routes of Ontario.

For the White Mountain National Forest in NH and ME, and the Maine and Virginia State Park systems, I am able to purchase an annual vehicle pass that allows entry and must be displayed when parking at trailheads. Adding a parking pass at a nominal fee to a permit reservation would generate additional revenue and, if nothing else, identify those who have legitimately gone through the reservation system. In the White Mountains of NH, there is a requirement at the most popular trailheads to display the permit on the vehicle. It can be purchased on site for daily use or in advance longterm. I'm not sure how effective it is, but my observation is that most people will pick up the pass for their days hiking. It is based on the honor system so you can draw your own conclusions on the efficacy of it. The annual pass works for people that frequently use the associated wilderness areas; it is actually a bargain for someone who frequents the parks or trails. It appears there was an issue of people ignoring the reservation system in the BWCAW this past year and this might be one way for the FS to check on who is a legitimate user. Just to provide an example of how things are managed in other areas of the country.

Wondering out loud because I do not know the answer...has the BWCA ever "sold" out? That being no permit available on any particular day for any EP? I assume no but truly don't know. I have never faced the permit/reservation conundrum because when I get around to identifying the time period I can go, I find and EP that interests me on a declining scale until one is available and that is where I go. The unintended consequence of my laissez-faire approach is that you get to see a lot of the BWCA. I appreciate however, the need for planning and the desire for a particular location. No easy answers I am afraid.

JimmyJustice: "Wondering out loud because I do not know the answer...has the BWCA ever "sold" out? That being no permit available on any particular day for any EP?"

Looking back at all of the data I've kept, the busiest day ever was Thursday July 30 2020, when there remained only 19 of the 267 Overnight Paddle permits for the day. Scratch the 3 usually offered but closed for #7-From Canada, and it's actually more like 16 of 264... 6% remaining:
Trout Lake-2, Little Vermilion Lake-3, Lac LaCroix Only-7, Fall Lake-1, Saganaga Lake-1, Bog Lake-1, South Hegman Lake-1.

What we have as a nation as our stock in trade is access to the wilderness, hopefully without overcrowding. What should we get in return? Money is not the answer for the reasons already identified.

What then should we ask in exchange for the access? How about volunteer time in maintenance? For example, we could require that visitors spend a day in maintenance for every 7 days of access. It could provide an environmental education component, get some work done, and probably increase respect for the wilderness.

One thing that I forgot to mention in my previous post, the campsites that they most want to close are some of the largest, and most used favorites, the 4 and 5 star type sites. Many are only a lake or two in from entry points, but they realize that is also where the overcrowding is, so their hands are tied. Soil erosion is the big concern as soil is in short supply in that area. When trees, bushes and grass are killed, the roots that protect the soil die also, and you have drastically increased erosion. This soil will never be replaced so it is critical to protect it. The people in a recent thread who wanted enlarged campsites and trees cleared at the waters edge to improve the view of the lake are definitely NOT going to get any sympathy from the FS, as the trees at the waters edge are the most critical. They would like to push people in to lesser used areas and lesser used camp sites. They most definitely DO NOT consider it a "campground". It was a very educational conversation. It seems everyone bends the LNT rules a little. I know I am guilty of not always going at least 200 ft (2/3 of a football field) away from camp to collect firewood,the rotting wood is important to the soil biology, I wonder how common that is? I'm going to try to do better. I'm not sure I completely agree on everything, not sure I want them to push the bad behavior further in to the wilderness.

mgraber: "One thing that I forgot to mention in my previous post, the campsites that they most want to close are some of the largest, and most used favorites, the 4 and 5 star type sites. Many are only a lake or two in from entry points, but they realize that is also where the overcrowding is, so their hands are tied. Soil erosion is the big concern as soil is in short supply in that area. When trees, bushes and grass are killed, the roots that protect the soil die also, and you have drastically increased erosion. This soil will never be replaced so it is critical to protect it. The people in a recent thread who wanted enlarged campsites and trees cleared at the waters edge to improve the view of the lake are definitely NOT going to get any sympathy from the FS, as the trees at the waters edge are the most critical. They would like to push people in to lesser used areas and lesser used camp sites. They most definitely DO NOT consider it a "campground". It was a very educational conversation. It seems everyone bends the LNT rules a little. I know I am guilty of not always going at least 200 ft (2/3 of a football field) away from camp to collect firewood,the rotting wood is important to the soil biology, I wonder how common that is? I'm going to try to do better. I'm not sure I completely agree on everything, not sure I want them to push the bad behavior further in to the wilderness."

I'm really glad to hear they are thinking about things in this manner. Protecting the resource should take precedence over "user experience".

And while I agree it would be unfortunate to "push the bad behavior further into the wilderness" I honestly believe most of the bad actors won't make it that far back.

Interesting thread. Since it is significantly cheaper to get a permit to camp in the BWCAW than it is to camp in a state or federal campground, I think something is off economically. Yes, I realize the campgrounds have certain amenities, but the cost of maintaining and supervising usage of the wilderness area is steep.

In terms of people abusing the permit system for National Parks, they could implement a higher price for weekend reservations and/or not provide full refunds for "canceled reservations" if someone keeps just the weekend. That could at least discourage abuse.

straighthairedcurly: "Interesting thread. Since it is significantly cheaper to get a permit to camp in the BWCAW than it is to camp in a state or federal campground, I think something is off economically. Yes, I realize the campgrounds have certain amenities, but the cost of maintaining and supervising usage of the wilderness area is steep."

Don't overlook the free primitive camping at USFS forests and BLM land. Here in NYS a lot of free camping in state forests, with many sites with privys, tables, fire rings and some lean-tos.

I would think the USFS might "market" the SNF camping opportunities to take some pressure off BWCAW. It would seem a lot of the pandemic bulge would be fine with a site on a lake not far from car with fewer rules all for free.

mgraber: Their job is to protect the wilderness and to help people to enjoy it with minimum impact or modifications to it ... It seems that the LAST thing they are worried about is accommodating more people or improving the campsites as that is pretty much the opposite of what the wilderness needs."

People call it a "park," but it is not. It is the Boundary Waters Canoe Area WILDERNESS. I make it a point of referring to it as a wilderness as that term has specific meaning. We have National Parks. We have National Forests. It is neither of those things. It is a designated wilderness. I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to visit it. I AM saying that people need to recognize the power in the words we use and stop calling it a park because that leads to people thinking of it differently than if we stressed how "not-a-park" it is. Anyone can visit the BWCAW, but it isn't for everyone. If I made a single change to the permit process, it would be to stress the importance of recognizing the BWCAW's status as a wilderness and to treat it as such instead of treating it like random Nat'l Forest land or some National Park.

I'm 100% for reducing supply by closing some of the most damaged sites. I worked in ecology for about 9 years. The damage done in some areas is no joke. With reduced supply, we should also reduce demand. Stressing how "not-a-park" it is is one way. Holding BWCAW visitors to an even higher standard with stricter requirements for permit acquisition would be nice.
I'm thinking that a bit tougher test would be the way to go here. People already play fast and loose with the current requirements, and at-home video viewing isn't helping ensure that well-informed people are entering the wilderness especially with how basic those videos are to begin with. If someone can't demonstrate that they genuinely understand the difference between a wilderness area and a park and don't understand some basic local ecological concepts and dos/don'ts, they should be going somewhere else.

There are a lot of people who consider themselves experienced and responsible who still don't grasp just how important it is to not trample an extra tent pad, trim an inconvenient tree branch, clear every last bit of dead wood in the immediate area, and don't at all grasp how limited and important shoreline soil is for the area. Too many people consider a wide-open, trampled, erosion-fest of a site to be "5-star." A great wilderness site should be a site that feels like a part of the wilderness you're in, not a site that is apart from the wilderness.

Another way to disperse pressure in the area would be for the USFS and area enthusiasts to discuss camping in the surrounding Superior National Forest more. So much discussion goes straight to the BWCA while ignoring all the public land and water surrounding it as if the SNT is somehow inferior to the BWCA and undesirable as a destination.

Unfortunately, the thing that would help the wilderness the most, within the context of still allowing visitors, would be increased and stricter enforcement, especially in the highly-abused areas, but the USFS doesn't seem to have much interest in finding a way of making that happen. I mean, I get that it costs money and people, but I haven't even seen any signs that they're trying to figure-out how to make the money and people happen.

I'm sure there is an attitude of "maybe things will chill-out after the pandemic ends," but I wouldn't count on it. Just because more people are trying wilderness camping because the pandemic is limiting their options doesn't mean they're not finding a love of it that will out-last the pandemic (this is a good thing btw; we need more people to appreciate these things if we want to keep wild places protected). A smarter way to approach this would be to assume that things won't change as the pandemic comes to an end.

schweady: "

JimmyJustice: "Wondering out loud because I do not know the answer...has the BWCA ever "sold" out? That being no permit available on any particular day for any EP?"

Looking back at all of the data I've kept, the busiest day ever was Thursday July 30 2020, when there remained only 19 of the 267 Overnight Paddle permits for the day. Scratch the 3 usually offered but closed for #7-From Canada, and it's actually more like 16 of 264... 6% remaining:
Trout Lake-2, Little Vermilion Lake-3, Lac LaCroix Only-7, Fall Lake-1, Saganaga Lake-1, Bog Lake-1, South Hegman Lake-1.
"

That was one busy weekend for sure. I would not have thought it could get that busy. Good in one way (interest in the wilderness) and not in others (overcrowding, footprints, stress on the wilderness etc).

I'm firmly in the camp of "BWCA Not-A-Park"

The tools are already available to manage the BWCAW in a manner that is far less impactful on the physical resource, more conducive to providing a better "wilderness experience" for the user, and more inline with the intent of the Wilderness Act.

The problem has always been the politics that always seem to encourage the maximum number of people using the area to support local outfitters, restaurants, and stores in gateway communities.

Ideally, campfires would be banned on heavily used lakes, just like they are above timberline or on heavily used lakes/areas in many western wilderness areas.

Also, it makes no sense to keep daily entry point quotas so high that groups are often forced to camp illegally because all sites are occupied.

The State of Minnesota should also adjust fishing regs to maintain the BWCA as a high quality fishery, much like Quetico--with reduced bag limits and slots.

Where is the BWCAW called a park, assuming you're talking about the one in MN, and not the one in Douglasville GA?

So much gloom and doom. It's almost funny.

billconner: "Where is the BWCAW called a park, assuming you're talking about the one in MN, and not the one in Douglasville GA? "

I hear and read many people call it a park or "the park" colloquially. It isn't called such officially anywhere, but colloquialisms can be just as misleading. Even the Tumblehome podcast guys call it "the park." It is a small thing, but it doesn't help when we should be stressing the importance of its status as a wilderness instead of "casualizing" it by comparing it to a park.

mschi772: "

billconner: "Where is the BWCAW called a park, assuming you're talking about the one in MN, and not the one in Douglasville GA? "

I hear and read many people call it a park or "the park" colloquially. It isn't called such officially anywhere, but colloquialisms can be just as misleading. Even the Tumblehome podcast guys call it "the park." It is a small thing, but it doesn't help when we should be stressing the importance of its status as a wilderness instead of "casualizing" it by comparing it to a park."

I have also wrestled with the term "park" used in discussion with the BWCAW. I think it may give a perception to people unfamiliar with the area that it is just like any other "park", and takes away from the history, uniqueness and importance of the region. And also of its future existence and our stewardship practices that play a big role in the areas natural quality.

I myself equate a park with merry-go-rounds, swing sets and picnic baskets. I did some internet searching and found why some may use this terminology. I found some definitions to say, "A park is an area of naturally occurring, semi-natural or planted space set aside for human enjoyment and recreation or for the protection of wildlife or natural habitats."

I agree. Its status is designated as a WILDERNESS, and we should stick with terminology that reflects this uniqueness.

JW

I've seen many post on this site and others that we need to introduce more young people into enjoying the outdoors. Now I'm reading that we need to start limiting access and reducing the number of camp sites and permits. These camp sites are what they are they are. They are not wilderness. They are sites with a cleared common area and tent pads and a path to a dug out latrine. Yes we should take every precaution to reduce the impact we have on the camp site but I don't think limiting access is the answer. And I don't think it matters what you call it.

Was that Yellowstone by any chance in the OP? Just curious. I spent more than a couple mornings chasing campsites in that park with my family....I felt pretty darn lucky to get one each time but I was wondering if there couldn't be a better system. Some of the most sought-after campgrounds always seemed to be full as of 7:30AM.

It's a popular (and beautiful) park....but I digress.

Yeah YNP went to 100% reservations for a few very popular campgrounds that were formerly 100% 1st Come 1st Served. And I believe GTNP did as well. And they made these changes without much advance notice or publicity. I was paying close attention and was able to grab something but not what I was hoping for.

I'm sure there are people who have grown comfortable with the previous system that will be really surprised when they arrive this summer and find there's absolutely nothing available, every site is booked every day. Demand far exceeds supply. I hope they have plans to expand the campgrounds or add sites and I think there are opportunities to do so. My best guess is they'll go to a lottery system for certain campgrounds at some point like they do with backcountry permits.

If the general idea, look, feel and management strategy of the FS for the BW is not able to be maintained by the current FS staff under the current permit/reservation load. Then they need to reduce the permits or increase the staff. I don't have a problem with either. If permits are reduced, those of us that are "into it" will adjust our behavior and reserve our permits when necessary.

Chieflonewatie: "I've seen many post on this site and others that we need to introduce more young people into enjoying the outdoors. Now I'm reading that we need to start limiting access and reducing the number of camp sites and permits. These camp sites are what they are they are. They are not wilderness. They are sites with a cleared common area and tent pads and a path to a dug out latrine. Yes we should take every precaution to reduce the impact we have on the camp site but I don't think limiting access is the answer. And I don't think it matters what you call it."

+1

Just let the copper mine go in place a 10 cents BWCA tax per pound.


The forest service would have all the funds they needed.

R1verrunner: "Just let the copper mine go in place a 10 cents BWCA tax per pound.



The forest service would have all the funds they needed."

And in a few years, no one would want to go there anymore. Problem solved.

Porkeater: "

R1verrunner: "Just let the copper mine go in place a 10 cents BWCA tax per pound.



The forest service would have all the funds they needed."

And in a few years, no one would want to go there anymore. Problem solved. "

Boundary Waters Copper Accident

This is the whole reason I don’t like the user fee model. The feds or the states should allocate the funding their parks need, with cash coming regardless of any connection to usage, and let people in for free. We have the money, we waste far more for far worse.

As it stands, it’s a race to the bottom for parks to nickel and dime visitors for everything, lower service quality and cut corners.

Porkeater: "

R1verrunner: "Just let the copper mine go in place a 10 cents BWCA tax per pound.



The forest service would have all the funds they needed."

And in a few years, no one would want to go there anymore. Problem solved. "

More money less people most of what people want.

A win win.

Step 1 is to enforce the current system. I pulled a permit for EP 33 on Sept 10th last year. On our way out, there were three separate groups coming in on an entry point that has one permit per day. Hmm. I did not realize it until we had the truck packed up. We saw a couple at the lake who just came in, and saw two other separate groups on the trail coming in. So did they have a permit for some other entry point, or did they not have permits at all. They were not day paddlers based on the amount of gear. Maybe they should add a license plate number on the permits?

Step 2 is to just wait a bit, like maybe a year or two. Once everything opens up including camping in local areas, the BWCA traffic may go back to 'normal' where only entry points like Mudro sell out and there are just less people going.

Step 3 is to make changes, if any, thoughtfully. I really like the current system. Most people know you need to plan ahead to get certain permits, or hunt for a canceled permit later. Once you enter at your EP you can go and camp where ever you want with a few exceptions (i.e. EP 22, ...). I would hate it they went to a system like Voyager NP where you have to reserve a specific camp site for each specific night. I like that the cost is minimal and that you can cancel without a large penalty. I would not have gotten the EP 33 permit had someone not canceled.

As far as campsites. I think some should be closed like the crappy ones where no one wants to stay. They should find and open new sites base on selection criteria like hard surfaces around the fire pit with a tent area with naturally very little under growth like mature pine groves. I think the camp sites have been where they are today for a long time and there are better locations where people and nature can exist with a lesser impact.

I agree wholeheartedly HDR that making major changes based on last year is bad planning.

I do like the Quetico superintendent's initiative to require face time between all groups entering and rangers.

billconner: "I agree wholeheartedly HDR that making major changes based on last year is bad planning.


I do like the Quetico superintendent's initiative to require face time between all groups entering and rangers."

And coming to you courtesty Ontario Parks is a flat fee for a back country campsite no matter whether you have 1 or 9.

$42 is the figure for Temagami this year and Massassauga in the pilot program

Not Quetico yet but how much is a Q site worth to you?

yellowcanoe: "

billconner: "."

And coming to you courtesty Ontario Parks is a flat fee for a back country campsite no matter whether you have 1 or 9.


$42 is the figure for Temagami this year and Massassauga in the pilot program


Not Quetico yet but how much is a Q site worth to you?"

Out fitter and resort protection fees.

R1verrunner: "

yellowcanoe: "

billconner: "."

And coming to you courtesty Ontario Parks is a flat fee for a back country campsite no matter whether you have 1 or 9.



$42 is the figure for Temagami this year and Massassauga in the pilot program



Not Quetico yet but how much is a Q site worth to you?"

Out fitter and resort protection fees."

that is per day. It puts soloists and couples out to hang and encourages large groups in what will not again be "wilderness". Its a money grab by MNR and developed by bureaucrats

yellowcanoe: "

R1verrunner: "

yellowcanoe: "

billconner: "."

And coming to you courtesty Ontario Parks is a flat fee for a back country campsite no matter whether you have 1 or 9.



$42 is the figure for Temagami this year and Massassauga in the pilot program



Not Quetico yet but how much is a Q site worth to you?"

Out fitter and resort protection fees."

that is per day. It puts soloists and couples out to hang and encourages large groups in what will not again be "wilderness". Its a money grab by MNR and developed by bureaucrats"

I don't see any evidence that this will generate higher revenues. A group of four adults would be getting a slight discount and the discount increases significantly with higher group totals.

This definitely disinsentivises small groups - particularly solo campers and it sucks if you're among them.

I will be among the first to decry a government shakedown but I fail to see how this increases revenue. If it does, it seems that it would be very marginal.

My biggest objection is how this will impact families. A family of three or four will not get the benefit of youth discounts.

I would fully support using permit price increases as a mechanism to direct traffic.