Boundary Waters Quetico Forum :: Quetico Forum :: Change in Ontario Parks fees
|
Author | Message Text | ||
HighnDry |
|
||
Jackfish |
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. |
||
tumblehome |
Argo: "Responding to several points: 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 |
||
sedges |
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. |
||
Minnesotian |
Price Gouging by Ontario Parks If this per night fee eventually jacks up Quetico's fees, solo canoeing will become very expensive. |
||
mgraber |
|
||
Jackfish |
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. |
||
hobbydog |
|
||
billconner |
|
||
timatkn |
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 |
||
timatkn |
I guess I was wrong... T |
||
Argo |
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. |
||
flaxman |
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. Well said! |
||
yellowcanoe |
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. |
||
Argo |
tumblehome: "Argo: "Responding to several points: 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. |
||
Argo |
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. |
||
portagedog09 |
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. |
||
bobbernumber3 |
|