MartinG wrote:
Jfpaddler wrote:
While I don't like the cost and the impact it has on solo campers, I can see why it's happening from more than just a cash grab perspective. Essentially, a flat-rate fee eases the burden on Park Wardens and creates a consistent revenue stream for an organization that is striving to be self-sufficient (97% of OP operating costs come from user fees, 3% from taxation, with a goal of being 100% self-sufficient).
I suspect there's a significant number of people who are abusing the "honour" system that's involved in having people self-report how many people are in their party when booking and paying for a reservation. E.g: I make a reservation and pay the rate for one person and then take 9 instead, so my $99/night group trip becomes $11/night. While it is theoretically possible for Park Wardens to enforce this, its virtually impossible logistically due to lack of staffing and the size of the patrol areas covered by PWs. It's difficult for gate attendants (who have no legislative authority) to address it, as they would either have to call a front country PW to address the issue before the party launches or a PW team has to chase the party into the backcountry - not very efficient nor practical.
If this suspicion is correct, there's no way of addressing the issue without increasing user fees to some degree. Ontario Parks needs the revenue for legitimate purposes, so instances of individuals/groups abusing the system hurt us all. Ontario Parks already runs a skeleton crew of Park Wardens (~400 seasonal PWs responsible for over 300 PPs). A PW on North Tea Lake told me there's four of them responsible for the entire northwest corner of the park, from the Nipissing River at the Western boundary to the Brent access and all the lakes in between. It's simply impossible for them to adequately address this problem with that few staff, and hiring more PWs to the tune of $15,000 (pay for a 16 week contract, not including training costs which are substantial) would have a significant impact on user fees as well.
Being familiar with the academic literature on the topic of funding parks and protected areas, Ontario Parks striving for self-sufficiency has pros and cons. The upside of this model is that it keeps the organization from being a victim of the political happenings of the province. IE: No government can cut the budget of an agency that doesn't receive a provincially funded budget in the first place. Further, it means that only those who use the system pay for its services, which is seen as fair if you don't consider the environmental benefits associated with protecting lands and the economic benefits associated with the tourism economy in areas near popular parks. The downside is obvious, if the agency is acting like a corporate entity, maximizing profitability becomes the first objective and the supplementary (albeit raison d'être) goals of the organization like environmental protection and the provision of recreation opportunities often take a side seat.
Overall, I don't like the changes but I understand why they're happening. I'll still solo camp in provincial parks because I believe the agency still serves to protect valuable environmental and recreational resources, however I worry about the ramifications this will have on other recreational resources like crown land and non-operational parks. Between this, the issues with reservation competition, and the growing occurrence of bad-etiquette campers, there will surely be an impact on other areas. I don't think this is a cash grab as much as it is creating efficiencies in the system, although the end result on the solo user isn't much different.
I didn't intend for this to become a ramble and I hope it doesn't read that way. Access to sustainable recreation is both an academic and a personal passion of mine, of which this is a pressing debate. Despite my background in researching similar topics, I wish to end by saying that this is by no means only way this issue can be looked at. If there's another way to have a self-sufficient parks org. (which is invaluable if done right) while still keeping fees for solo travellers reasonable, I would be ecstatic to learn it and would support it wholeheartedly.
Nonsense!
A flat-rate fee that increases costs for groups of 1-3 travelers while reducing the costs for groups of 4-9 travelers does nothing to ease the burden on Park Wardens and does nothing to guarantee a net positive to your bottom line. The impact large groups have on the park is drastically greater than the impact of a solo or tandem traveler. All the garbage, environmental impact, damage, noise, and behavior issues that comes with a larger group is being subsidized by the solo and tandem traveler. This policy will just encourage more erosion and abuses to our parks. Let's save a buck a cram everyone into one site! This further idea that the park system is overrun by campers who book 1 permit and sneak in 9 campers is Red Herring. The campers that cheat the system will always cheat the system. Just bump the permits fees across the board. Raise them all $5 or $10. That will far more reliably and fairly generate revenue.
Also this is entirely politically motivated and follows the current governments mandate. Ontario Parks IS a victim of a political happening. Too late for a change in fees structure to prevent it from being a victim of the political happening.
I see your points and do not disagree on some, others I might. This is bearing in mind that we’re ultimately on the same team. As I mentioned, I don’t like the costs on solo travellers caused by this policy either. I simply don’t believe this is a only a malicious cash-grab that serves no other function to the organization. To add, I don’t think this policy is practical beyond the busy parks like Killarney, Algonquin, the Mass, Frontenac, and Kawartha Highlands. This works at primarily front country parks that have some junior-backcountry paddle in sites like Bon Echo, Grundy. Rolling this out at places like Quetico and other wilderness class parks is bizarre and impractical. I’d support this policy wholeheartedly if it were reserved to the busy natural environments and not in the wilderness class.
Out of curiosity, what makes you so sure that it isn’t common for people to play the system by sneaking people on to permits when it is so easy to do with very little chance of being caught? While COVID accelerated the progression, Ontario Parks has and will continue to reduce the need to obtain physical permits at the access point, one of the few ‘lines of defence’ at monitoring who is and isn’t entering the park. For this reason alone a flat rate fee of some kind (although less than what’s proposed) makes sense, same as it does for car camping.
Like it or not, the push for self sufficiency has been a work in progress for years, well beyond the current government. This has been a work in progress since the agency adopted the corporate model in the 90s.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
