Public Access

[Jonny]

After I recently had a letter to the editor published by the North Bay Nugget re: cormorants, I was contacted by one of the directors of an organization which I had not been aware of... the Ontario Outdoors Recreational Alliance.

 

He sent me some materials about a number of issues a few days ago, including some about public access, an issue that was near and dear to my heart when I was the president of a Timmins conservation club and a director of the OFAH, and an issue on which the MNR would not budge.

 

It's an issue that just won't go away, and in some areas it's actually worse than stated in the OntORA access pamphlet. In the Chapleau area, the MNR a number of years ago set up "Remote Tourism Areas" that actually ban ALL public fishing in waters within the zones, whether you can walk to them or not. If you park your vehicle at one of the closure signs and walk in to a trout stream within a zone, even though you may be miles from a fly-in lodge you cannot fish it legally.

 

The Ontario Outdoors Recreational Alliance (OntORA) believes that Ontario citizens should have the same right of access to our public lands as do paying tourists. The Ontario government now sets aside thousands of our best lakes and many thousands of square kilometers of pristine Crown land for the exclusive use of paying tourists at remote lodges.

 

Ordinary outdoors enthusiasts who attempt to use existing public roads to access these virtual "game and fish farms for the elite" are charged by the MNR and subject to hefty fines. Yet, the government and the NOTO Lands & Forests Issues Manager insist that these lands are "accessible" to the public - yeah, sure they are - if you can carry your canoe, food, hunting, fishing or camping gear on you back and walk in at least three kms or more on public roads, many of them tax-subsidized. That's not what we call "accessible".

 

It's time to end this discriminatory and elitist two-class system.

 

While tourist lodges should operate at a profit, this should not result in unequal right of access. Lakes and lands closed for legitimate reasons should be closed to everyone, including paying tourists.

 

---

 

OntORA's goal is to promote the conservation of all natural habitats critical to maintaining a sound ecology, and healthy sustainable fish and wildlife populations for present and future generations. OntORA understands that the basic requirements for almost every form of outdoors recreation depend on healthy sustainable habitats. But what good are healthy outdoor habitats if they are reserved for others and we Ontarians and our children are not allowed to enjoy them to their full potential?

Edited June 20, 2009 by Jocko

[johnnyb]

wow. sucky. what can we do?

[Jonny]

wow. sucky. what can we do?

 

Make some noise, I guess. Be aware and make some noise. And watch for any expansion of the program and complain like hell to the right people if you see anything similar being proposed. But don't count on getting anywhere.

 

This tends to be a Northern Ontario issue because it's used to protect "remote" lakes for toursit outfitters. But it can impact Southern Ontario fishermen who travel to the north as well. Lakes and entire areas that are "off limits" tend to concentrate more pressure on lakes not included in the zones. There are also roads in non-posted areas where culverts are dug up or bridges demolished so that outdoorsmen can't access the opportunities.

 

Lovely for the MNR though... it prevents fishermen from spreading out and being even less regulated than they already are by the ridiculously low number of C.O.'s that are fielded. It ALSO impacts hunters, moose hunters in particular.

 

The MNR plays nice little games when they make a proposal and ask for input. If I wrote a protest letter on behalf of the 80,000 member OFAH to Chapleau MNR (which I did), it counted as one response. If Joe Blow tourism guy wrote a private letter in favour of the closure, it counted as one response. Put "for" and "against" on a pie chart (which the MNR did) and hey, guess what? It seems there are as many people in favour as opposed.

 

Don't kid yourself, the MNR will not move on issues where they don't want to move. Do I sound cynical? After years of experience... you bet! They don't embarrass easily, they will listen patiently and make sympathetic noises, and then they will do what they originally set out to do.

[Jonny]

Like in a lot of areas, the MNR (government) relies on short attention span and NIMBY to defuse criticism of poor policy.

 

Something like pike in the Kwarthas eventually meets the same fate as access elitism in the North. A flurry of criticism dies out after the MNR holds meetings and accepts letters, and then it's back to business as usual for them. Any bureaucrat loves nothing more than to be left alone.

[TDunn]

Hhhhmmmmm.....Chapleau is my favorite place in the world....havent ran into any of these zones yet but I will be keeping an eye open...and yes I will be opening my mouth if I ever see this.....thanks for the info on this matter.....I am actually in the works of setting up a guide service up near that area and this is definitly something I need to know about.....Thanks

 

 

 

TDunn

[Guest ThisPlaceSucks]

this has been a MAJOR issue the last few years north of white river. same deal...

some lakes even have access roads going into them but they are for remote tourism only...

definitely a kick in the teeth...

 

that said, the economy of white river/chapleau is reliant upon the HUGE dollars brought in by this tourism, and obviously the provincial government makes a killing on non resident licensing and tax dollars.

 

i'm actually for setting up conservation areas and limiting access, but not in the name of protecting tourism outfitters...

i'll never endorse the "nature for those who can afford it" concept.

[bushart]

Well, Well, well.....

 

Wonder how this story plays into access to navigible waterways---remember the story Bill M told about landowners-around that saugeen creek-and that if you can run a canoe on it your gold.

 

I guess it's true..."All pigs are created equal but some pigs are more equal than others".

 

I seen this crap going on in the past with outfitters putting their US hunters on stands on "CROWN" land and them getting upset when Joe the Canadian deerhunter walks under his treestand.

 

Bushart

[Jonny]

I am actually in the works of setting up a guide service up near that area and this is definitly something I need to know about.....Thanks

 

The problem with these areas is that they protect not only fly-in lakes with outpost camps on them, but deny fishing opportunities, through existing or future timber access roads, to entire areas - creeks, small lakes, forest good for hunting.

 

i'm actually for setting up conservation areas and limiting access, but not in the name of protecting tourism outfitters... i'll never endorse the "nature for those who can afford it" concept.

 

I can buy lots of things if they treat all users of the resource equally. So it sounds like we're much the same.

 

I seen this crap going on in the past with outfitters putting their US hunters on stands on "CROWN" land and them getting upset when Joe the Canadian deerhunter walks under his treestand.

 

I have seen too many examples of outfitters thinking that they have a right to a resource and nobody else does. Not only that, but they think that, for them, time stands still. What was a remote area once might not be a remote area in 20 years, but they still think they should be the only ones with access. It's OK if everybody else gets squeezed, as long as they can maintain their "preserve".

Edited June 22, 2009 by Jocko

[Jonny]

Here's something else to be concerned about...

 

The Issue

 

The [Federal] Conservative government's proposed amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) threaten the longstanding public right to navigation, including the right to recreational navigation. If the Budget implementation Act is passed, these changes will grant the Transport Minister an unprecedented discretion to define “classes” of projects on waterways that do not require government approval or environmental assessment (EA). Furthermore, this discretion would not be checked or balanced by any public consultation, transparent disclosure or Parliamentary review.

 

Although the Government invokes the language of “red tape” and “duplication” with provincial processes, the simple fact is that navigation is a purely federal responsibility under the Constitution. Even when projects trigger provincial EA processes, these do not specifically require that the public right to navigation be considered. In short, both navigation and environmental rights are being sacrificed for short-term economic gain. The result will be less federal protection for the rivers, creeks, lakes and seas where Canadians paddle, raft, fish and play.

 

The effects will be felt by recreational and outdoors communities, from participants to ecotourism businesses. Examples of potential effects include:

 

* Whitewater kayaking: Important sites may be considered to be not navigable and thus not protected due to the high number of “obstacles” along the waterway.

* Fishing: Rivers with the potential of being restored for the purpose of reintegrating fish and aquatic life may not receive protection under the proposed amendments.

* River Paddling: Canoeists and kayakers may face increasing obstacles in their riverways such as culverts and small-scale hydroelectric dams. Seasonal and remote wilderness waterways may no longer be protected.

* Sea kayaking: Aquaculture farms may be established without providing a safe and effective navigation channel, which could effectively sever sea kayak routes.

 

Visit:

 

http://www.ispeakforcanadianrivers.com/