Lakes access restricted for tourism only?

[Dara]

I have no problem with restricted access. IE no motorized...but planes are motorized...thats my beef.

 

The same with the cacheing boats thread. Tourist operators cache boats.

 

I feel this is to make up for screwing up the spring bear hunt.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Dara

[Musky or Specks]

I don't mind this.

 

Though I agree, that closure of a lake/area should not occur to protect an outfitter. I am all for the restriction of access and closure of roads to motorized vehicle traffic. I believe those willing to put the work in to get to a wilderness lake should be rewarded with a wilderness experience. People are just looking to have remote fishing/hunting handed to them on a 4x4 platter. Don’t like it? Don’t want to put the effort in? This is why the MNR provides pressure deflecting and easy access fishing with stocking.

 

Now I understand that some people are less able than others and should be given the opportunity to enjoy the great resources available. Perhaps an application for exemption....I get this is wishful thinking and would otherwise encumber an MNR short enough on resources without dealing with human rights issues.

 

Personally I am tired of the road warrior mentality that leaves beer cans and Tim Horton cups as souvenirs on our back roads. There are nothing but benefits to getting out of the truck or off the atv. Seeing, hearing more animals, reduced carbon footprint, exercise.

 

Maybe this would breed some more respect into users of these remote areas. So instead of having a garbage dump at an access point to a lake it would be clean. Not many people want to portage cases of beer several kms to go camping. Using these areas should be thought of as a privilege offered to those who respect the land and its bounty. Respect is earned and grows when you must put forth blood and sweat to get to great fishing or hunting.

 

If you don’t want to put the effort in, there are more accessible areas to frequent or save up and pay an outfitter to take you.

 

These are my ramblings on the subject. Myself and some buddies work our butts off to get to these places, why can't other folks?

Yep this is what I feel no motorized access. Ive humped 30k through the bush to get on some flyin only type places with no access. Anywhere you can drive to Yahoos are sure to follow. That said the no fishing regs that Jocko talked about are pure crap. If some can fish there all should be able to fish there.

[Jonny]

What wer'e dealing with here is not a tourism zone.

 

The Remote Tourism Zones are another aspect of the same problem.

 

---

 

I don't agree with another poster here that just because some lakes are "wilderness" lakes and are difficult to get to, they should be like that forever. That's the same mentality that drives fly-in outfitters to say that just because they have an outpost on a lake that it is basically theirs for eternity.

 

Population pressures mean that the "frontiers" must expand or else you have a larger and larger population competing for the same resources in already overcrowded and overfished areas.

 

Imagine in the 1930's or 40's if many lakes in the Muskokas had been designated as remote tourism lakes or wilderness lakes, and that the designation was still in place now. A little ridiculous, no?

[Lunatic]

Perhaps a petition is in order.

and then some research and send it off to local tv news stations that might give them something to research or look into.

[addy79]

Yep this is what I feel no motorized access. Ive humped 30k through the bush to get on some flyin only type places with no access. Anywhere you can drive to Yahoos are sure to follow. That said the no fishing regs that Jocko talked about are pure crap. If some can fish there all should be able to fish there.

 

 

so you and your boys strap a canoe to your back and hike 30K up the logging roads?

 

how long does that take ya?

AND do you just park your car at the mouth of the private road?

[troutologist]

The Remote Tourism Zones are another aspect of the same problem.

 

---

 

I don't agree with another poster here that just because some lakes are "wilderness" lakes and are difficult to get to, they should be like that forever. That's the same mentality that drives fly-in outfitters to say that just because they have an outpost on a lake that it is basically theirs for eternity.

 

Population pressures mean that the "frontiers" must expand or else you have a larger and larger population competing for the same resources in already overcrowded and overfished areas.

 

Imagine in the 1930's or 40's if many lakes in the Muskokas had been designated as remote tourism lakes or wilderness lakes, and that the designation was still in place now. A little ridiculous, no?

 

 

Where do you draw the line? Bulid a 4 lane right up to Hudson's Bay?

 

I understand your point. I don't endorse ownership of a lake or an area. I do think that if these growning populations were forced to put some effort into accessing an area they would respect it to a greater extent. Stewardship of the resource by the owners, who in this case are all Canadians. Sometimes its neccessary to put some people out in an effort to preserve for the future.

 

Further, regarding population growth. Do you see a large increase in the Northern Ontario centers close the the heart of these issues? Places like like Chapleau, White River etc. are most likely going to stay somewhat stable (or decline) unless something very different occurs in thier business sectors. Tough to compare this to the GTA in my opinion.

Edited September 2, 2009 by troutologist

[Dara]

so you and your boys strap a canoe to your back and hike 30K up the logging roads?

 

how long does that take ya?

AND do you just park your car at the mouth of the private road?

 

 

you don't get off the pavement much do you

[LeXXington]

Just wait 20 years.. Fishing will be the best ever cause only those who can afford it will go.

[Jonny]

Where do you draw the line? Bulid a 4 lane right up to Hudson's Bay?

 

No of course not, not in our lifetime anyway! A couple of hundred years from now? Who's to say.

 

I understand your point. I don't endorse ownership of a lake or an area. I do think that if these growning populations were forced to put some effort into accessing an area they would respect it to a greater extent.

 

It's a good thing that the majority of fishermen are law-abiding and do have a sense of conservation. Also, we should give a nod to the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters for the stellar work they do. For those who neglect to respect resources (there are always some of those) we have enforcement.

 

Further, regarding population growth. Do you see a large increase in the Northern Ontario centers close the the heart of these issues? Places like like Chapleau, White River etc. are most likely going to stay somewhat stable (or decline) unless something very different occurs in thier business sectors. Tough to compare this to the GTA in my opinion.

 

Timmins is relatively close to the Chapleau area. I myself made the trek many times along HWY 101. And Timmins is a good example of an expanding population base hemmed in by lessening fishing opportunities - too may fishermen on too little water. So when you have the gov't and the MNR declare road closures and remote tourism zones, and deny expansion, there's bound to be an outcry. Trouble is, the outcry doesn't reach way down there to Queen's Park.

[addy79]

you don't get off the pavement much do you

 

 

hahaha not as much as i'd like!

 

what gave that one away???

[Terry]

well at this stage of my life I can not hump it 30k into the bush to get to a back lake, so why limit me because I am not capable of humping it that far by foot..........

and the guy I take on the back of my ATV who spends his life in a wheelchair unable to get there with out my help and now I can't take him because it's closed to ATVs....what is this country come to.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

ok I made the last part up to gain sympathy......

 

 

 

 

did it work

[chuckymcd]

200 dollar bill

 

you guys have a $200 bill, i knew there was something strange about our friends across the boarder

[Dara]

Where do you draw the line? Bulid a 4 lane right up to Hudson's Bay?

 

I understand your point. I don't endorse ownership of a lake or an area. I do think that if these growning populations were forced to put some effort into accessing an area they would respect it to a greater extent. Stewardship of the resource by the owners, who in this case are all Canadians. Sometimes its neccessary to put some people out in an effort to preserve for the future.

 

Further, regarding population growth. Do you see a large increase in the Northern Ontario centers close the the heart of these issues? Places like like Chapleau, White River etc. are most likely going to stay somewhat stable (or decline) unless something very different occurs in thier business sectors. Tough to compare this to the GTA in my opinion.

 

We have areas put aside now. Algonquin park, Lake Superior provincial park. Make a few more parks. Just leave some room for us to use.

The population down south has all kinds of entertainment. We up here have very little. We go fishing in our leisure time. You want us all to have to hump 20 miles back into the woods when there is a road. How do we kill an evening when we live in Wawa. There is nothing to do but go 20 miles up Duebrielville rd and hit a walleye lake for a couple hours. We gotta walk it now just because some guy wants to make his living flying rich guys to the lake there is a road too? This is everybodys land. Fishermen generally don't pollute. Not the ones that live in the north anyway

 

PS I'm gonna hit the river for perch tonight

Edited September 2, 2009 by Dara

[anders]

How do we kill an evening when we live in Wawa.

 

 

We DRINK!!!

[Dara]

We DRINK!!!

 

 

Have you noticed, that the further north you go, the more people drink

[troutologist]

Fishermen generally don't pollute. Not the ones that live in the north anyway

 

 

I get what you're saying. Don't get me wrong I like to have the option of driving right to a lake and be able to catch some fish.

 

But when is the last time you went to chippewa, tilley or the 38 road in general? The shoulders and boat launches are coffee cup, beer can and worm container repositories.

 

In a place like LSPP it is the exception to see litter.

 

Can you imagine the money you would make producing a cheap, functional worm container that was biodegradable?

[Dara]

I just hate seeing a timmies cup in the bush...it drives me nuts. You drove it in, drive it out!!!

[bdzyngel]

As someone who grew up in White River, and whose family still works there in the tourism business (not remote tourism), I can assure you that business has been hurt by the restrictive road use policy. The government is not maintaining wilderness roads around White River, like the North Regean road which traditionally has been used by many drive in tourists from both the Northern US and Ontario. Less tourists are coming to the area to camp and fish and use local supplies than in the 60s-80s because of these policies.

 

The policy is to close roads whenever possible when no one complains to support remote tourism. This is supported by other government policies such as the one attempting to bring back phantom caribou herds which never existed in the area to any great number except in the imagination of academics and the antis.

 

I think the government should be supporting a more balanced policy of maintaining some areas for drive in camping or even cabin renting (like is done in Quebec) along with remote tourism. The White River area and the North Shore of Lake Superior has many large lakes which could sustain more fishing pressure. Following lobbying by the remote tourism industry, the policy makers have chosen the easier route - support a few at the expense of many...

[Jonny]

We have areas put aside now. Algonquin park, Lake Superior provincial park. Make a few more parks. Just leave some room for us to use.

 

Right on! There's no problem as long as all the public users of the resource have equal right of access to the resource, even if the access or use is restricted in certain ways for all equally.

 

Tourism operators are basically public users, not a special sort of category that should have preference. If pushing back the "frontiers" means more public access to lakes that at one time used to be remote, then tourist outfitters need to go with the flow.

 

In that vein, I don't think I would have any problem in granting a sort of "grandfathering" to outfitters, where they would have a few years grace (and protection) before they re-locate. But I firmly believe that outfitters do not have a right, ad infinitum, to hunker down on certain lakes or in certain areas and call those their own. That is what the government is granting them right now, and it's not right.

[rickster]

I am fortunate enough to live in an area where we can still access some logging roads to get to some "back country lakes"

I have used some of these roads but it is still usually a bit of a chore to get to the lake itself

 

About ten years ago I was working for my now father in law who is a logging contractor

We cut a block beside a lake the ministry said had lake trout and northern in it.

we decided one day to pull a boat in from the logging road we built over into to the lake with the atv( about a mile through the bush)

four of us went in and in 2 hours of fishing we had our 8 keepers (all about 2-3 lbs lakers)

We took a portable fish finder with us that day and the screen was full of fish

 

One year later we went back to try again

we took the fish finder again and it was like the dead sea.

Never caught a trout

When we were leaving we discovered a path down to the lake from a different section of road

The path had been cleared with a brush saw wide enough to drive a pickup through

 

heard this year that a few fish were caught but that is ten years after being almost wiped out

 

maybe some of these fly in guys have a right to be worried about the future

Edited September 3, 2009 by rickster

[Jonny]

There are so many possible variables in this story that it's hard to know where to start.

 

But that aside, I'm not unsympathetic to the business plans and projections of outfitters. I believe, however, that their plans and projections should take cognizance of what the long-term plans are for an area (i.e. forest management agreements) and that their planning should be done accordingly.

 

If I were an outfitter and I knew for example that I had a 10-15 year window on a lake, I might build a quite decent outpost. If I knew that I had a 5 year window I would be looking at a more basic structure. Of course if I were in the outfitter's shoes, I would like to build an outpost and have that outpost (and the lake it is on) completely protected for as long as I wanted to run it. But that's just not realistic in areas where multiple land use is expanding.

 

One might say that there is a strong tradition of fly-in outfitting in the North, but there is also a strong tradition of guys working hard (and investing $$$ heavily) at accessing deep woods fisheries. It's one of the key perks of being a year-round resident of the north and making the most of your locale and lifestyle.

 

The idea of business preserves does not sit well with many fishermen, just as it would not sit well to have a commercial fisherman have exclusive access to the fishery on a lake that you can drive to.

[irishfield]

DANG... all this talk of back lacks and flying in... I know what I've gotta do on Friday now! Sorry guys...

Edited September 3, 2009 by irishfield

[Jonny]

Don't try flying in to a remote tourism zone. I don't think they allow fishing access by private planes either.

[irishfield]

If it's not listed in my AIP as a PPR (prior permission required) landing area it's fair game as far as I'm concerned... otherwise they can take my registration numbers and advise me when my tribunal date is. Lady Evelyn Smoothwater wardens already tried.

[rickster]

if you wanna pick me up some day I can show you some dandy lakes to fish