Posted by ted on 12/3/2002, 8:16 pm

I have to agree with what you have stated. It would be benificial to educate the people using the Park on how to act/react when confronted by a potentially dangerous situation. However,as Barry has pointed out, a lot of the access points are no longer manned by Park Rangers but are contracted out. So perhaps a pamphlet could be created, similar in size to the one that was made to identify trophy lake restrictions, and when a person comes in to register, ask them if they have read the pamphlet and if they haven't, give them one along with their camping registration. That way the campers can read it on their own time. I don't know about you, but when I'm heading into the park, I don't really want to spend a lot of time at the entry point / registration office.


Posted by WILDCATWICK on 12/5/2002, 10:32 am

I agree to an extent with your points. Mostly in regards to money! But I do think that telling people about bears and weather will probably take less than 5 minutes and won't cost a nickel!

Everyone does have the right to enter the Park and be as ignorant as a slug.

I am responsible and I know what repercussions my actions bring as does anybody who is conscious/knowing. The unconscious/unknowing people are going to continue to show up regardless of what you would like. As populations increase and stress of life increases we will see more of this group. Society has changed to a quick and easy gratification population. To think that everyone who enters the park is going to educate themselves is unrealistic, the MNR agrees and this is why they manage the park.

Your point that Algonquin is not remote is a subjective one. I for one have been camping all over the continent and I feel that parts of Algonquin is extreamly remote. It is considered a biosphere because of its remoteness. Many studies and tests are conducted there because of this fact. If I want extreme remoteness I do not go to an organized or managed park. I go out in the middle of nowhere where you don't have to register and you don't have to worry about another persons actions causing you problems because the people who are not in knowing are not going out to these remote locations! Unfortunatly managed lands have the most problems because it has the most ignorant people entering it. If the rangers are going to protect you and I and the wildlife they can not just allow ignorant people in. MNR agrees with this already! That is why they hand out the little yellow bags and monitor the amount of people who enter the interior.

I'm not aking for much of a change. Just one that effects everyone and most of the creatures of Algonquin. I don't want an ignorant person to leave trash behind, not hang food, and to not try to scare a bear away during an encounter. When this happens it effects everyone who enters the park after them. MNR has done a good pretty good job with trash awareness but I think there could be other non-cost improvements made.

I appreciate the opions and debate. This is a worthy topic worth exploring. Thank you Barry for giving us a venue to think about the challenges of keeping a Park preserved.


Posted by Kevin on 12/5/2002, 5:29 pm

Algonquin does have sort of have a bear brochure. Pretty much all of the access points where you can pay should have the Algonquin "newspaper looking thing" there. One is for the highway 60 corridor, the other is for the interior. There's a big article in there every year about Algonquin's bears, and lists a few "basics" eg. don't leave food in tent, don't run away if you see one etc... I don't know about all of the offices, but the East and West gates also have a bear brochure published by the MNR that goes into a lot more detail. Usually whenever I go into the park I always grab both the corridor and interior paper, read it to see if there's anything new from my last trip, then use it for starting the first campfire. There's not always park Wardens at the access points, usually it's just an employee. They may not have the time to give bear advice if it's not asked of them.

As for advising about the weather, I think most of Algonquin is very unpredictable for weather. If you stay at any of the highway corridors there will be a 5 day forcast in there, and I'm sure most campers have experienced that what the 5 day is showing, is alot different then what it actually looks like outside at that particular time.

Personally I'd rather park Wardens enforce the laws in the interior, but unfortunatley there isn't enough of them to do that, so they can really only can try to educate the campers on their way in, or out.


Posted by Barry Bridgeford (Site Host) on 12/5/2002, 6:30 pm

The function of rangers was never to be "camping instructors". Rather they helped protect park resources by informing visitors about the intricasies of the park's wild environment, by promoting proper safety and preservation practices, and by enforcing related regulations.

There always were a few wildcard and hooligan visitors that the rangers had to reign-in. But recently there's a definite increase in uninformed and uncaring visitors practising trashing, burning and other destructive behavior. The trash-piles, burned-out sites, killed trees and damaged equipment, that have been all-too-common in some Crown Land areas, are now being observed increasingly in Algonquin Park.

Suggestions that Algonquin Park should be a "learn-by-mistakes" free-for-all zone is as unreasonable as the claim that "Its not remote, there are people everywhere all the time and there are roads to most of the lakes". Statements such as these illustrate the growing ignorance of what Algonquin Park is. Attitudes like this actually show how overdue the re-introduction of an active ranger program is.


Posted by Rick on 12/5/2002, 9:16 am

Reading through the posts on this subject, I can't help but think of the ongoing losses to staff, management, research, and integrity in general that are happening in the park - while we have to bear with lowered quality of management, our tax dollars are being thrown into bottomless pits like the Federal Gun Registry, which is in the news today.

Starting out at an initial cost of two million, costs rapidly escalated to 100 million and currently stand at a billion. Today the proponents are asking for another 72 million to keep the bureaucracy going. As you've probably heard, this would have been enough in federal transfers to employ thousands in law and conservation enforcement and save many more lives than the gun registry ever will. No criminal will ever register a gun - who are the politicians trying to fool?

Write to your politicians about the waste going on in governmental spending. The few remaining MNR employees I know say that written letters are taken far more seriously than emails, the Ministers' offices place about fifty times more weight on a respectable typewritten letter, than on an email.

We need programs that are effective on the ground. The bureaucrats need to get out of their ivory towers and connect with reality.


Posted by Mark on 12/6/2002, 1:46 pm

Letter writing is a good idea but needs the backing of a larger established goup.

Ideally a group like the Friends of Algonquin Park or CPAWs would take up the cause and use the contacts they have to get some action.

CPAWs has recently launched an initiative to develop a conservation strategy for Algonquin wolves. They quote the Theberge's study that claims that the majority of Algonquin wolves are killed by humans (shot, trapped, poisoned) around the park. They have made a proposal using the Environmental Bill of Rights so the MNR is obligated to respond.

Potentially, there may be a way to propose increased numbers of rangers in the park as a way to enforce / monitor the wolf issue? Just a thought.

Another thought ... "a picture says a thousand words". Most of us take cameras with us into the park ... perhaps an initiative can be established were campers / canoeists supply photographic evidence of what's actually going on in there. I know taking pictures of garbage in the woods is not what most people have in mind but, a photo in the Toronto Star of a backcountry campsite full of junk tied to wolf deaths and lack of funding for proper enforcement may motivate the powers that be to look at the state of the Park. Someone would need to establish a collection point for data on the issue.

Just my initial thoughts ....


Posted by Kevin on 12/6/2002, 1:56 pm

I think a letter showing support for more interior Rangers would definately be a good thing. I'm sure the existing Rangers/Wardens would agree as well.

Out of Ontario's many, many Provincial parks Algonquin has to be the most profitable. I know that I myself, spent over a thousand dollars there last year on my many camping trips. With almost a million visitors each year the park has to be taking in much more then it's spending. But if I understand it correctly, a lot of this money doesn't go back into Algonquin, it is used to help other less profitable (or non-profitable parks exist). Perhaps a suggestion would be to use more of Algonquin's profits to reinvest within the park Eg. more interior rangers, more interpretive trails etc..

Organizations such as the Friends of Algonquin are excellent, but I think Ont Parks must contribute a lot more$$$ than they do, especially considering Algonquin is seeing more visitors each year, as opposed to less.

I don't mind spending $100/visit versus camping on Crown Land for free, if I knew my money was going to improve my favourite camping place!!


Posted by Bob on 12/7/2002, 8:28 am

I hope I'm not out of line but I also see the same thing in car campgrounds in the Park. Now I know it's not classed as interior camping but the same respect for nature,rules and consideration for other campers should apply. Some people can't go interior because of health and other reasons. I don't just go on a week-end. We went last year for over 30 days over the summer so I see many things happening.In one incident the people next to us even cut down a whole tree in the Spring to make room for his trailer in the summerand it was him who told about it as if bragging.Campsites are a discrace with garbage being left behind, washrooms a mess,site overcrowded with people and cars, and I can keep going on. I don't think they should be contracting out the campgrounds at all it should be fully operated by the Ministry ONLY! Car camping should be as respected the same as interior. I don't see Park staff patrolling enough, probably because they are under staffed.


Posted by Rick on 12/7/2002, 8:53 am

Hi, Barry, first let me say thanks for providing this forum where we can discuss park issues. And see the triplogs and photographs, which are especially appreciated this time of year.

Since we want park rangers employed again in the park, we'll probably have to petition for MNR funding to be restored for this purpose. Having talked with rangers previously, as far as I know this is where their funding came from.

My feeling is that writing to a district manager, or park administrative staff will be fruitless, since they are likely to dismiss this as running counter to the ongoing MNR policy of downsizing staff and privatization wherever possible (they will say, rangers would be nice, but where will we get the money, there is no funding for this).

In my opinion, letters should go right to the top - Ernie Eves and Jerry Ouellette, in order to get exemption from current policy and restore funding for rangers. Their addresses are:

Honourable Ernie Eves
Premier of Ontario
Room 281, Main Legislative Building
Toronto, Ontario M7A 1A1
Telephone: (416) 325-1941
Fax: (416) 325-3745 6195
ernie_eves@ontla.ola.org


Mr. Jerry Ouellette
Minister of Natural Resources
Whitney Block, 6th Floor
99 Wellesley Street West
Toronto, Ontario M7A 1W3
Telephone: (416) 314-2301
Fax: (416) 314-2216
jerry_ouellette@ontla.ola.org


They should return a minister's letter outlining the current policy, state of funding, plans and possibilities, etc. If they don't, there are also the Leaders of the Opposition and opposition Critics to MNR to raise the issue further.

I can write a sample letter suggesting format, statement outline, etc. if anybody wants - probably the most effective thing is to send letters are clearly worded and easily understood, with an authentic tone. And again, it's much better in my opinion to mail or fax a letter than having the message buried in the flood of emails that ministers get every day.

There may also be federal funding to pay for park rangers, but I'm not sure where this could come from. Maybe the non-governmental agencies and organizations could provide suggestions.


Posted by Barry Bridgeford (Site Host) on 12/7/2002, 9:47 pm

In response to some defensive email I've received, I want to clarify that this issue is neither one of criticizing private contract operators nor one of "informing about bears". The general issue is that with extensive cut-backs and re-organization, a lack of "in-the-field" rangers informing and enforcing has resulted in careless, inconsiderate and dangerous practices becoming more and more common. Damaged, cut-down and burned-out campsites, unhygienic campsites, open contravention of fire-bans and fishing regulations, dogs-at-large harassing wildlife and campers, rowyism and amplified music ... the list goes on.

Admittedly this trend is the result of an overt minority. However, this trend coincides with the recent reduction in staff .. to be specific, the "in-the-field" representatives of the authority of the park. It is unrealistic to expect immature and irresponsible inividual campers to miraculously acquire maturity and responsibility by being processed through an access point. Access point operators are neither contracted for, trained for nor given the authority for performing what were once the duties of of rangers in the interior of the park.

Knowing that rangers were patrolling the park, prepared to both offer assistance and to enforce the regulations protecting the park, used to keep most of the immature and irresponsible element in check. However, realizing that the regulations are not being actively enforced has emboldened this element to practice their destructive inclinations. We have learned over time that we cannot have a civilized society without education by teaching and regulation by enforcement. The very concept of a park is to preserve and enjoy the natural environment. In order to succeed, parks also require education by teaching and regulation by enforcement.

A park is not an anarachistic wilderness. Even responsible users of unorganized Crown Land are rallying against those who damage, destroy or abuse it.

Bring back the rangers to Algonquin Park!


Posted by Mark on 12/9/2002, 2:55 pm

Enforcement will teach people ... fining people a few hundred bucks for trashing a site will teach them pretty quickly!

But of course you need rangers to do that enforcement ...which we don't have.


Posted by Alex Koeslag on 12/9/2002, 7:56 pm

I agree that there should be more Rangers and more funding for them . They are Algonquin's protectors ( not camp instructors ) and as far as I'm concerned they are over -worked and under-payed . In Joanne Kates " Exploring Algonquin Park " she states that the park has gone from eighty-five interior rangers in 1979 down to twenty-five today due to government cut-backs . I think this is tragic and intolerable !
Lastly , let me state that I believe the primary purpose of Algonquin is to be a logging preserve and that the publics interest in the park are only secondary .
I wish there was more I could do to reverse the above situation . Thanks.


Posted by Jester on 12/9/2002, 7:57 pm

One year in Algonquin we were camped on Ragged Lake, last evening around the beginning of Labor Day weekend. We watched hoardes paddle through all afternoon looking for sites.

One duo camp chugging down Ragged from the portage with a Sports Pal (whatever the name for those canoes with huge black bumpers all 'round making them look like tugboats) with a motor on it.

The two guys were yippin' loudly to be heard over the engine and I looked at my two friends who were on their first visit to the park and said, "That is illegal on this lake."

Upon return to the outfitters down the road I inquired about that and this finding was reported to the park staff as our contact was actually on the phone with them at the time.

Since the park had a helicopter in the area for other reasons we were told that the park would fly into Ragged and if found, the two guys ran the risk of having all their camping gear confiscated. Also, the vehicles connected to the camping permit might be impounded until a major fine was paid.

This was back in the late 80s or very early 90s and it points out at least two things. One, people don't read the back of the canoe routes map where it tells you the basics of the park including what lakes are off limits to motors. Two, the park was serious about enforcing the rules.

However, times, priorities, budgets, etc., change and that kind of reaction may not be possible today. I think the "boil your drinking water" campaign is more obvious these days than is any wilderness safety theme.

If I live long enough I may see one of two ultimate disasters. Licensing being required to use the park interior. Just like a driver's license I may need to prove I can go out in the woods and not kill myself or my friends. I may have to get certified by some organization in a manner similar to the ASE auto certification program to weed out unsafe Daniel Boones. If I don't have my certification in the outdoors the parks will not issue me a permit.

That would be sad but the governments both yours and mine could make money by starting such a program thinking that it would be in our best interests. Probably a horror to many of us.

The other ultimate end would be almost as sad. The governments abandon the park system to total privitization or worse, total anarchy when the government steps out of the park business completely. There will be an Algonquin Park only in the sense of boundaries on paper and the whole area becomese self-regulated much like some areas such as Temagami which is an area larger than the official park areas of Smoothwater-Lady Evelyn, Obabika River Provincial Park or Makobe-Grays Waterway... etc. Maybe parks move in the direction of glorified Crown Land reserves.

I hope these two scenarios do not develop but these are some of the thoughts that do cross my mind from time to time. Tonight I just put them out there "on paper".