PhantomJug wrote on Jul 9^th, 2010 at 2:11am:

I will always sing the praises of Quetico no matter what the fees are.  The park itself and the beauty found there is never in question.  However, I will never sing the praises of fees that are too high where the average normal Joe cannot enjoy them.  The park fees and the beauty of the park in my eyes are two different points.  I think with $10.00 a night fees the park would still be pristine and that would be a price I would be in favor of paying.  $20.00 is too much in my eyes, especially when other entry points are paying less.  $20.00 is not a game changer, but $50.00 definitely is.

travelingted wrote on Jul 11^th, 2010 at 7:25pm:
So you still don't think paying more for an entry that cost more to maintain is fair? That extra expense should be picked up by northern entries?

I few years ago at Copia, right after a price increase, I was told that Quetico was one of the few PPs that actually made a profit and there was even some consideration for the exchange rate at the time as I recall. That was a few years ago though.

Lets assume Q is only breaking even now and the good people of Ontario were willing to subsidize half the cost of your trip in return for providing some good logging jobs for the residents of Atikokan. Sound good? Or, would you prefer twice as many visitors to arrive at the price point you'd feel is fair?

I have a story idea for ya Ted. I'd like to know if the BW's overnight visitors pay their keep. Does the SNF make a profit as a whole? I think there's timber sales as well but what I'd like to know is if just the overnight BWCAW visitors pay more or less than 100% of the associated cost or do we as taxpayers pick up their tab? I have no clue and would really like to know.

A BW trip is cheap in comparison and yet you drive right past it and continue complain about the price? I just don't understand your POV or reasoning. What's wrong with the BW anyway? Buy American eh? Taking your $400.00 worth of stimulus tax rebate money and spending it in Canada is fine by me. I'm just saying think about what your saying.

BTW - Ted - I see the lead misinformation is still up. Can't that and the $11.00 factual error be changed with a few keystrokes? The $3 is no big deal but as lung as someone has the file open....

FWIW - This thread contains some unkind and irrelevant opinions of a personal nature but everyone has access to basically all the facts on that so I see no need for anything to be removed unless individual authors reconsidered.

Thanks for the better link!  Now that I read it, I can comment on it.

PJ's response was harsh, but not undeservedly so.

Quote:

That's the point.  If you want these "amenities" go stay at Super8.  This position never ceases to amaze me.  The whole point about places like Q is to have a wilderness experience, not to have a scuba lesson scheduled at 10am followed by a massage, then lunch, then go for a dive, back at the buffet for dinner with rum punch and dancing to 30 year old whitiefied reggae tunes.

Quote:

Yep.  If you don't have the basic responsibility for life, we don't want you here.  We have our own idiots and don't need to import them.

Quote:

Journalists do research.  Go be a journalist.  This info is readily available.  I bet many of the non-journalists here can answer this inane question that was followed by blind speculation.

Quote:

Oh please.  Show me the costs of doing all these things excluding travel from your home.  

Quote:

You should be sued for this, unless you have facts to back up your thinly veiled accusation.  Heck you should be sued for the lies & exagerations found in the entire article.

Above is just the short list.  I didn't bother reading the 2nd opinion piece.

solotripper wrote on Jul 15^th, 2010 at 9:27pm:


My mind?  I lost that years ago.

ST's right though.  The wilderness is not for the thin-skinned.  Say what you mean, mean what you say and sometimes you just gotta make your own way.  I rarely take anything personally around here (unless someone makes it personal) and my tone can be . . . lets say a little less than diplomatic (it's a gift).  Giving before taking goes a long way though.  I would never ask for anyones secret this or that unless I was willing to give up my own first.  And I've said it before around here; if we ever meet (God forbid) in Quetico, a pull from the jug is yours.   

Quote:


Well Preacher, here's a point we can both agree on
I don't think it can stated often enough. Unlike face to face inter-action where you can see "nuances", a grin/smirk/glint in someone's eye, on the Internet as Preacher said, you assign a "voice/image" of what YOU think the other person is saying or must look like.

I bet everyone that posts regularly on the QJ, has in retrospect, at least once, read their post and thought, " Man, that didn't come out anything like I meant it too" What sounds so smart/clever/humorous/wickedly sarcastic in your head, can come across in print in ways you never intended.

Most of us post on the fly, we don't type it out, sit and re-read it and then submit it.  I don't want too see people afraid to speak their minds, so I try and follow the old debating rule, attack the subject matter, not the person. Sometimes we slip, but for the most part, unless it's waaay beyond the pale, it's in a sarcastic/humorous way.

Now the article we've been discussing is a completely different animal. It had the benefit of time/re-writes/editing. So the author should expect it to be taken as it's written, good or bad, controversial or not.

There's been a few tiffs here that got out of hand, and the moderators shut them down, as they should. But having thick skin, and avoiding vicious personal attacks goes a long way in keeping the QJ a place where you can speak your mind and let the fur fly