Poll Finds Strong Support for Non-Resident Camping Fees in Alberta

A recent Bow Valley Insider poll suggests that a clear majority of local readers support the idea of Alberta introducing a non-resident camping surcharge similar to the one BC will implement this spring.

BC announced it will begin charging out-of-province visitors a $20 surcharge on campground reservations starting May 15. The fee will apply to frontcountry and backcountry camping, cabin rentals, and mooring buoys in many of the province’s most popular parks, including Mount Assiniboine Provincial Park.

Of 467 respondents from Canmore, Banff, Calgary, and surrounding communities, 73.88% said Alberta should introduce a non-resident camping surcharge like B.C.’s. Just over 26% opposed the idea.

On its face, the result appears decisive. The comments that followed, however, reveal a far more layered conversation about fairness, taxation, access, tourism, and national cohesion.

A majority framed the issue as fairness and funding

The most common argument in favour of a surcharge was simple: Alberta taxpayers already fund provincial parks through their taxes, while out-of-province visitors do not.

“We pay taxes to cover infrastructure,” one respondent wrote. “Out-of-town visitors do not.”

Others pointed to overcrowding and booking frustrations. Several Albertans described waiting hours online at the start of the reservation season only to find campsites gone within minutes.

“As an Albertan, trying to get a campsite is almost impossible,” one reader wrote. “When you finally get there, it feels like half the campground is from out of province.”

For many, the surcharge was not about punishment but about cost recovery and access.

“If the province is footing the bill for infrastructure, residents are already giving additional support through taxes,” another said. “A surcharge is fair.”

Some respondents also called for reciprocity, arguing that if British Columbia is charging Albertans $20, Alberta should respond in kind.

“If B.C. is imposing an extra fee on Albertans, why not charge B.C. campers here?” one wrote. “Seems fair.”

A smaller subset went further, suggesting that both out-of-province and international visitors should pay more, and that higher fees could help maintain aging infrastructure and fund additional staffing amid rising visitation.

But many drew a hard line at charging fellow Canadians

Opposition to the idea was not primarily about the dollar amount. It was about principle.

“Campgrounds should be the same price for all Canadian residents,” one reader wrote. “Charge international visitors more if needed.”

Several respondents described a non-resident surcharge between provinces as divisive and contrary to the idea of a unified country.

“We are supposed to be a united Canada,” one comment read. “One country, one fee.”

Others raised concerns that tiered pricing could create a patchwork of internal borders.

“Where does it end?” one reader asked. “Should Bow Valley charge non–Bow Valley locals? Should Jasper charge non–Jasper residents, then non–Albertans on top?”

A number of respondents referenced ongoing national conversations about reducing interprovincial trade barriers and questioned whether new provincial surcharges moved in the opposite direction.

“It creates internal borders,” one wrote. “It undermines national cohesion.”

International tourists: a point of convergence

If the debate over interprovincial pricing exposed sharp differences, there was broader agreement around one idea: charging international visitors more.

Many respondents said they would support higher fees for non-Canadian residents while keeping pricing equal for Canadians.

“In other countries I visit, I consistently pay more than locals,” one reader noted. “That makes sense.”

Another wrote, “Canadians shouldn’t be charged extra. Just non-Canadians.”

Several also pointed to the federal government’s periodic free-entry days in national parks, arguing that rising visitation and infrastructure strain require sustainable funding models.

Access versus affordability

A parallel concern ran through the responses: affordability.

Families, some noted, rely on camping as one of the few remaining low-cost vacation options.

“Families camp because they can’t afford to do otherwise,” one respondent wrote. “Don’t take that away.”

Others argued that if fees need to rise, they should rise for everyone rather than introduce tiered systems.

“Prices should just cover build, maintenance and future projects for all,” one wrote. “Not create an us-versus-them mentality.”

Still others questioned whether surcharges would meaningfully solve the booking problem at all.

“I doubt the higher fee would deter visits,” one reader said, suggesting that demand, not pricing, is the core constraint.

A deeper question about who parks are for

Beyond the policy mechanics, the responses revealed a broader philosophical divide: are provincial parks primarily funded amenities for residents, or shared national spaces that should remain equally accessible to all Canadians?

For supporters of a surcharge, the argument centered on local taxpayers carrying disproportionate costs in an era of record visitation, infrastructure strain and environmental wear.

For opponents, the surcharge symbolized creeping fragmentation in a country already grappling with regional tensions.

“It’s too much of the us-versus-them mentality,” one reader wrote.

The poll does not settle the question. What it does reveal is that while a clear majority of respondents favour some form of non-resident fee, the reasoning behind that support varies, from reciprocity to cost recovery to access management.

The sharpest dividing line may not be over whether fees should rise, but over who should pay them.

As provincial governments across Canada confront record park visitation, climate-related damage, and mounting maintenance costs, the debate is likely to expand beyond British Columbia and Alberta.