Quote:

If it serves to limit the number of users, the park is better for it.

 According to the master plan, I thought the idea was to increase usage, not decrease. While parks might not exist solely for the financial benefit of the surrounding communities, any monies spent there by park users, helps not only the local economy, but keeps the communities from wanting to encroach on the parks for sources of revenue.  It doesn't have too be all or nothing.

When I first started going to the Q, the outfitter's got a break on camping fees. Reserve with them, you saved $4 or so for each night, over reserving thru park. That was per person. Say you have 4 people, that's $16 a night, times 7 days as an example, that adds up to $112.
Not a make or break figure for some, but for families or large groups it can/did make a difference.

My outfitter Q-Dave said that "savings" was often spent on outfitter gear. Tackle/bait/ rental canoes/ camping gear. When they took that away, it hurt the small outfitters the most. It also had a souring effect on paddlers who saw themselves getting less bang for their buck.

Not what the official park goal was, at least as I understand it? Isn't it true that revenue from the more accessible parks, helps pay for the more remote, less used ones?

The banning of imported live bait, because of invasive species makes sense, but why good old Canadian bait from Atikokan? Is there a difference between a Q- lake leech and the ones found outside the park :-?  It may be a crutch, but too many, a leech for Waldo's is a time honored tradition.  By the way, the live bait ban doesn't effect the Native People, the Indian guides I ran into on Wolseley were carrying leeches for their fly-in clients. So it can't just be about the dangers of live bait or they would of worked that out with the Native residents.

Since many here have found the hi-tech artificial's like GULP every bit as effective as live, what did the real live bait ban do, other than deprive local business's of revenue.

The best way too preserve Nature is by giving the people reasonable/affordable, hassle free access, balancing that against the damage human encroachment causes.

You can't fall in love with something, if you don't experience it first hand.
The vast majority of paddlers who visit the BW/Q fall in love with the area. They and they're children are the one's who will work to preserve it for future generations.

 What's reasonable too some, may be way over budget for others. Do we want economic prosperity to determine who gets too experience the parks, or do we want it open for everyone, at a rate that the average family/paddler can afford.

Teddy Roosevelt, the father of the American National Parks, wanted the wild places to belong too the people, not just the elite few for whom money wasn't a concern.

I know the locals had a say it the parks master plan, or at least that's the official line. I can't imagine all the outfitters were happy with the change in the camp fees I mentioned, or the bait/tackle places with the live bait ban. I'll bet like local politics here, the nays were swept under the carpet.