2015 Nitinaht Lake Fees and Politics
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2015 10:50 am
Attn: All Nitinaht Rec Site Users (please fwd this to any and all rec site users),
Here is the latest and probably the last from me until we have a final meeting (hopefully) with Ditidaht, FLNR, myself and possibly others. As mentioned earlier, Colleen from Ecoplan and the ministry have been very helpful and supportive offering info and documents. They think it's very important that the users of the campground share their opinions, ideas and desires for the future of the campground. We're the clientele that pays the bills.
Cindy Stern (Ditidaht Development Corporation) and I had a great chat for almost an hour yesterday. I've acted as a representative of the users of the Nitinaht rec site and have passed on the feedback, concerns and ideas I got from all of you. Our discussion was mostly all very positive and focused on how to collectively bridge the gap so that the Ditidaht can run a viable, profitable business while satisfying the needs and wants of their clientele at the Nitinaht rec site. All of this needs to fall under the regulations set forth by the Ministry of FLNR until the treaty passes. Ditidaht will soon own and run the campsite independently and the gov't will be no longer involved. Currently it is being run as a partnership agreement between Ditidaht and FLNR. Ditidaht Development Corporation has a license of occupation to run the rec site. Currently, any proposed changes, the fee schedule, etc must all be approved by the ministry.
Nitinaht is unlike any other rec site in that there is a huge core group of like minded users that almost all desire the same thing. As per the feedback I've gotten from the core group, this is what I have passed on as the needs/wants of the high majority of the users of the Nitinaht rec site:
-Leave the rec site like it is with no major improvements.
-Have someone in charge overseeing that everything that is supposed to get done in terms of maintenance actually gets done so that people feel their fees are justified and will willingly comply with fees.
-clean the outhouses properly and often (especially when busy) and stock with toilet paper at all times.
-Grade the road a couple times a year/when needed.
-Pump toilets when needed, before they overflow.
-Collect diligently so fees can go down instead of up.
-Put gravel and fire rings throughout the dirt/$17 premium front sites and allow fires only in those designated spots to avoid the chance of the root fires. We deal with root fires almost every year and sooner or later the whole place could burn, village included. Fires on the beach and other gravel camp sites are fine, assuming no fire ban.
In addition, I also communicated the following points that we as a high majority core group of campsite users hold:
- The unanimous view across the board is that we support the 2 original kite schools operating in the park. Both schools are entrenched within the community, professionally offer students a chance to learn to kiteboard in a safe, controlled environment, offer rescue services when needed out of their own time (and are rarely compensated) and bring extra clientele/income to the rec site. I made it clear that under no circumstances will we as a core group support/tolerate any additional kite schools at Nitinaht, for safety reasons including reduced launch space on the beach, an increased number of students dragging through the windsurfer area, etc.
- The fee schedule attached and the following updated website accurately reflect the fees that the campsite attendants are supposed to charge as listed here: http://www.sitesandtrailsbc.ca/search/s ... &type=Site The $23/night only applies to the back 10 group sites. All other sites are $15 for regular sites or $17 for front row premium beach sites regardless if you're in a tent, car, RV, etc. I communicated that the $23 fee doesn't make sense as the group sites are less desirable sites that people only camp in if everything else is full. The fact that they are "group" sites means that they will tend to be occupied by multiple groups rather than a single unit so the profitability of the site should easily double, triple, or quadruple when charged "per party". $15/party as opposed to $23 seems more than fair as these sites have no additional services when compared to the other sites. If these are the only sites available, each party is forced to pay $23 as opposed to $15/$17 for a site that's dusty, has lots of road traffic, is far from the beach, has no additional amenities, no foliage or privacy, etc. Not quite fair. Cindy and consequently the rec site staff are under the false assumption that all RV's are to be charged $23 regardless of where they camp and that's what they have been charging. As we sit now, until the treaty passes it's still a gov't rec site and the rec site staff must adhere to the fee schedule as set forth by the ministry. For the time being, If you're in an RV, print the fee schedule from the above website (and the attached doc) and refuse to pay $23 for an RV, unless you're stuck in one of the "group" sites, in which case, we need to pressure the ministry to change the fees for these sites as they don't make sense. In the mean time I will email FLNR and Ditidaht so that this issue gets resolved and the staff are instructed to charge the proper fees. Please notify me if anyone is charged $23 for an RV that is not in one of the group sites. Also of note- the 10 "group sites" at the back are not clearly identifiable. Apparently they're....... big?!
-The fee schedule assumptions on the attached document are not accurate. They assume single occupancy of sites which rarely happens during busy times. The number of rec site users assumed in the fee schedule is significantly undermined so in fact, if money was diligently collected from all parties using the rec site, the revenue would well exceed the targeted revenue as dictated by the ministry. The fee schedule as approved by FLNR is set forth to cover the costs of operating the rec site and no more.
-We discussed the fees compared to other similar sites. Cindy does not share the same view as we do on this and feels that Nitinaht offers great value as it is even for the $23 RV sites. The fact is we're camping in a remote location with one water tap as the only service. Prices cannot be compared to campgrounds in or near the city that offer level sites, paved pads, sewer, water, power, showers, laundry, firewood, garbage removal, professionally maintained grounds, wi-fi, phones, etc. One idea I offered although it seems counter-intuitive, was to improve maintenance, lower the fees and have a self registration system/drop box. This would increase compliance greatly and thus increase revenue. Also, the money would be under lock and key with one person responsible for removing it so it would be less likely to go missing. This would also cut down on labour costs as someone would just need to go around making sure people are paid up. Ultimately it's up to them, all we can do is offer ideas and feedback.
I did let them know that if fees are too high people will stop coming and/or will not comply with payment voluntarily.
Cindy has informed me that they have some great plans for this year that will benefit both the band and the rec site users:
-they will have some stand up paddle boards and kayaks for rent at the store.
- they are planning to have a cappuccino/coffee machine at the store.
We ran out of time to discuss the maximum 14 day policy. This is a tricky one as it's hard to enforce, especially when collections and as a result, documentation of dates has been lax. As explained to me by a FLNR officer- it's a policy that's supposed to enable any random person looking for a spot in a rec site the opportunity to find a site randomly. The problem at a place like Nitinaht is that most people have many friends that will save a site or hand theirs off to a friend and there's no way to regulate or enforce this. The only thing I can think of is to voluntarily adhere to the policy when it's busy, or at least invite friends/strangers into your site and make room for them to camp when it's busy. When there are many empty sites it's a policy that many people have an issue with for the obvious reasons as well as the fact that it takes away from campsite revenue. This will need to be discussed further in future meetings and as the treaty passes.
There is a significant lack of revenue that the rec site has shown in recent years, despite hard working employees. We believe this to be from a combination of poor maintenance, poor management, inadequate fee collections, and subsequent non-compliance from rec site users who feel the fees are not justified due lack of maintenance, such as the outhouses, road grading, etc. We've been promised by Ditidaht that a concerted effort is being made this year to improve maintenance/services/collections so, assuming that services are improved please do your part to comply with fees to support the Ditidaht and the future of the rec site.
Also to note, We have written authorization for the sauna in case anyone feels like getting involved. There are some stipulations in the document so please take note if you're involved. The doc is in another forum post.
I hope that answers some of the questions and concerns of the core group of rec site users. Hopefully this is the year everything changes in terms of maintenance so the fees they charge are justified.
Christopher Sarnecki
Here is the latest and probably the last from me until we have a final meeting (hopefully) with Ditidaht, FLNR, myself and possibly others. As mentioned earlier, Colleen from Ecoplan and the ministry have been very helpful and supportive offering info and documents. They think it's very important that the users of the campground share their opinions, ideas and desires for the future of the campground. We're the clientele that pays the bills.
Cindy Stern (Ditidaht Development Corporation) and I had a great chat for almost an hour yesterday. I've acted as a representative of the users of the Nitinaht rec site and have passed on the feedback, concerns and ideas I got from all of you. Our discussion was mostly all very positive and focused on how to collectively bridge the gap so that the Ditidaht can run a viable, profitable business while satisfying the needs and wants of their clientele at the Nitinaht rec site. All of this needs to fall under the regulations set forth by the Ministry of FLNR until the treaty passes. Ditidaht will soon own and run the campsite independently and the gov't will be no longer involved. Currently it is being run as a partnership agreement between Ditidaht and FLNR. Ditidaht Development Corporation has a license of occupation to run the rec site. Currently, any proposed changes, the fee schedule, etc must all be approved by the ministry.
Nitinaht is unlike any other rec site in that there is a huge core group of like minded users that almost all desire the same thing. As per the feedback I've gotten from the core group, this is what I have passed on as the needs/wants of the high majority of the users of the Nitinaht rec site:
-Leave the rec site like it is with no major improvements.
-Have someone in charge overseeing that everything that is supposed to get done in terms of maintenance actually gets done so that people feel their fees are justified and will willingly comply with fees.
-clean the outhouses properly and often (especially when busy) and stock with toilet paper at all times.
-Grade the road a couple times a year/when needed.
-Pump toilets when needed, before they overflow.
-Collect diligently so fees can go down instead of up.
-Put gravel and fire rings throughout the dirt/$17 premium front sites and allow fires only in those designated spots to avoid the chance of the root fires. We deal with root fires almost every year and sooner or later the whole place could burn, village included. Fires on the beach and other gravel camp sites are fine, assuming no fire ban.
In addition, I also communicated the following points that we as a high majority core group of campsite users hold:
- The unanimous view across the board is that we support the 2 original kite schools operating in the park. Both schools are entrenched within the community, professionally offer students a chance to learn to kiteboard in a safe, controlled environment, offer rescue services when needed out of their own time (and are rarely compensated) and bring extra clientele/income to the rec site. I made it clear that under no circumstances will we as a core group support/tolerate any additional kite schools at Nitinaht, for safety reasons including reduced launch space on the beach, an increased number of students dragging through the windsurfer area, etc.
- The fee schedule attached and the following updated website accurately reflect the fees that the campsite attendants are supposed to charge as listed here: http://www.sitesandtrailsbc.ca/search/s ... &type=Site The $23/night only applies to the back 10 group sites. All other sites are $15 for regular sites or $17 for front row premium beach sites regardless if you're in a tent, car, RV, etc. I communicated that the $23 fee doesn't make sense as the group sites are less desirable sites that people only camp in if everything else is full. The fact that they are "group" sites means that they will tend to be occupied by multiple groups rather than a single unit so the profitability of the site should easily double, triple, or quadruple when charged "per party". $15/party as opposed to $23 seems more than fair as these sites have no additional services when compared to the other sites. If these are the only sites available, each party is forced to pay $23 as opposed to $15/$17 for a site that's dusty, has lots of road traffic, is far from the beach, has no additional amenities, no foliage or privacy, etc. Not quite fair. Cindy and consequently the rec site staff are under the false assumption that all RV's are to be charged $23 regardless of where they camp and that's what they have been charging. As we sit now, until the treaty passes it's still a gov't rec site and the rec site staff must adhere to the fee schedule as set forth by the ministry. For the time being, If you're in an RV, print the fee schedule from the above website (and the attached doc) and refuse to pay $23 for an RV, unless you're stuck in one of the "group" sites, in which case, we need to pressure the ministry to change the fees for these sites as they don't make sense. In the mean time I will email FLNR and Ditidaht so that this issue gets resolved and the staff are instructed to charge the proper fees. Please notify me if anyone is charged $23 for an RV that is not in one of the group sites. Also of note- the 10 "group sites" at the back are not clearly identifiable. Apparently they're....... big?!
-The fee schedule assumptions on the attached document are not accurate. They assume single occupancy of sites which rarely happens during busy times. The number of rec site users assumed in the fee schedule is significantly undermined so in fact, if money was diligently collected from all parties using the rec site, the revenue would well exceed the targeted revenue as dictated by the ministry. The fee schedule as approved by FLNR is set forth to cover the costs of operating the rec site and no more.
-We discussed the fees compared to other similar sites. Cindy does not share the same view as we do on this and feels that Nitinaht offers great value as it is even for the $23 RV sites. The fact is we're camping in a remote location with one water tap as the only service. Prices cannot be compared to campgrounds in or near the city that offer level sites, paved pads, sewer, water, power, showers, laundry, firewood, garbage removal, professionally maintained grounds, wi-fi, phones, etc. One idea I offered although it seems counter-intuitive, was to improve maintenance, lower the fees and have a self registration system/drop box. This would increase compliance greatly and thus increase revenue. Also, the money would be under lock and key with one person responsible for removing it so it would be less likely to go missing. This would also cut down on labour costs as someone would just need to go around making sure people are paid up. Ultimately it's up to them, all we can do is offer ideas and feedback.
I did let them know that if fees are too high people will stop coming and/or will not comply with payment voluntarily.
Cindy has informed me that they have some great plans for this year that will benefit both the band and the rec site users:
-they will have some stand up paddle boards and kayaks for rent at the store.
- they are planning to have a cappuccino/coffee machine at the store.
We ran out of time to discuss the maximum 14 day policy. This is a tricky one as it's hard to enforce, especially when collections and as a result, documentation of dates has been lax. As explained to me by a FLNR officer- it's a policy that's supposed to enable any random person looking for a spot in a rec site the opportunity to find a site randomly. The problem at a place like Nitinaht is that most people have many friends that will save a site or hand theirs off to a friend and there's no way to regulate or enforce this. The only thing I can think of is to voluntarily adhere to the policy when it's busy, or at least invite friends/strangers into your site and make room for them to camp when it's busy. When there are many empty sites it's a policy that many people have an issue with for the obvious reasons as well as the fact that it takes away from campsite revenue. This will need to be discussed further in future meetings and as the treaty passes.
There is a significant lack of revenue that the rec site has shown in recent years, despite hard working employees. We believe this to be from a combination of poor maintenance, poor management, inadequate fee collections, and subsequent non-compliance from rec site users who feel the fees are not justified due lack of maintenance, such as the outhouses, road grading, etc. We've been promised by Ditidaht that a concerted effort is being made this year to improve maintenance/services/collections so, assuming that services are improved please do your part to comply with fees to support the Ditidaht and the future of the rec site.
Also to note, We have written authorization for the sauna in case anyone feels like getting involved. There are some stipulations in the document so please take note if you're involved. The doc is in another forum post.
I hope that answers some of the questions and concerns of the core group of rec site users. Hopefully this is the year everything changes in terms of maintenance so the fees they charge are justified.
Christopher Sarnecki
I concur with everything I just reviewed and thanks for covering the root fires and fire pit business. It is difficult to find a "non-root" spot sometimes and this takes some sleuthing to find the right or least offensive spot....perhaps some sites cannot HAVE a firepit due to the root masses or dense overhead canopy. We MUST continue to protect the trees that are left!!
