Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted January 27, 2011 Report Posted January 27, 2011 It seems recent publicity regarding crown land accessibility has got the Ministers attention long enough to sit down with OntORA, the lobby group threatening to take the MNR to court. OntORA is seeking public comment and questions for the minister regarding why crown lands are being reserved for remote tourist operators, and why long used roads are being not only abandoned, but blockaded. Please leave your comments here: http://ontora.ca/ontora-meeting-with-mnr-minister/comment-page-1/#comment-223 Thanks to anybody who cares!
johnnyb Posted January 28, 2011 Report Posted January 28, 2011 Great link, Doc. Hopefully it makes a difference!
solopaddler Posted January 28, 2011 Report Posted January 28, 2011 I'm all for limiting public access on remote northern lakes. The more the better. What would you rather have? A fish filled lake that takes a bit of effort and sweat to access or one that you can drive to that's fished out?
Dara Posted January 28, 2011 Report Posted January 28, 2011 Thats just it Solo. They aren't fished out. We have been fishing these lakes for 30 years and working to get into them. Sure, by 4 wheel drive or ATV now but they are on public land and we shouldn't all of a sudden be stopped from going there just because some lobby group gets the right politician in their pockets. It says no motorized access...well, do they pedal the planes that land there? Or do they just have enough money to fly around the law. Or wait, do they have the laws written for them. There are plenty of parks with no motorized access. if there are not enough them lobby for more. But don't lobby to stop me from using a lake so you can have it all to yourself.
Jonny Posted January 28, 2011 Report Posted January 28, 2011 Thanks for the heads up, Doc. I registered and left this input: As a director for the OFAH some years ago, I got involved in quite a number of access issues in the Timmins/Chapleau area. Much of what I believe as far as my opposition to restricted access has already been well-expressed here. Be aware of one thing I found particularly underhanded on the part of the MNR. When they put out a proposal and ask for stakeholder input, they fudge the numbers. One letter from an outfitter in favour of restriction and one letter from an OFAH representative counts as 50% in favour to the MNR, despite the outfitter being one person, and the OFAH letter representing the official policy of an organization with tens of thousands of members. I vividly remember one pie chart the MNR unashamedly put out, showing those for and against Remote Tourism Areas around Chapleau. The OFAH response was lumped in with single responses from individual sportsmen, against responses from lots of outfitters, and, you guessed it, the chart showed a clear majority in favour of restriction!
Moosebunk Posted January 28, 2011 Report Posted January 28, 2011 I read much of that... WOW!!! Good points both sides, overwhelming majority at that site support their obvious agenda. It should be applauded that the group exists and people are showing support there, otherwise all that's left is the OMNR and NOTO who believe the opposite it seems. Mulling it over... it's in the best interest of citizens and resource users that accesses established on Crown Lands not be accesses governed by any people other than all of those who pay for the Crown or I guess even have signed Treatied right & jurisdiction. If new areas are to be opened up in the name of any business (ie, recreation, forestry, mining) then closure of such areas shouldn't be an after-thought... it should have been considered before development occurred. It bugs me to know that Crown Land often appears owned by the highest bidder or whiniest people, and not the majority who pay everyday for it.
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted January 29, 2011 Report Posted January 29, 2011 (edited) I'm all for limiting public access on remote northern lakes. The more the better. What would you rather have? A fish filled lake that takes a bit of effort and sweat to access or one that you can drive to that's fished out? You obviously don't understand the gravity and magnitude of these closures. You know I'm all about sweating and effort. I pride myself on some of the remote locations I've portaged. These road closures are on such a scale they are making access to some areas impossible, not just difficult. Some people have had the road that accesses their family camp (not cottage) closed, if that isn't a slap in the face. These are small blue collar bush camps people built themselves. Something tells me if they closed access to YOUR cottage you'd be upset... or would you see the inherent good in preserving the fish stocks? Edited January 29, 2011 by Dr. Salvelinus
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted January 29, 2011 Report Posted January 29, 2011 Here is a recent example of a road closure on the Mile 38 road... about 45 minutes north of Sault Ste. Marie... hardly a "remote" area. MNR Closes McDonald Creek Rd (Mile 38)OCTOBER 21, 2010 · 0 COMMENTS A couple of weeks ago the McDonald Creek Rd., off the Mile 38 Rd., was suddenly closed by the MNR for no good reason. The perfectly good road was suddenly bermed and bridges removed. Over a dozen camps are behind the removed bridges, and outdoors people have been using the road for years with no problems. The MNR claims public liability, which is nonsense. Just another excuse to arbitrarily restrict our use of public lands. There’s a good discussion of the issue in OntORA’s Forums – Road Closures. Please read this, and add any opinions or information that you may have.
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted January 29, 2011 Report Posted January 29, 2011 Furthermore, while I realize this is a fishing forum, this issue isn't just about fishing. Many of the people affected are not anglers. They are ATVers, hunters, photographers and all other types of outdoor enthusiasts. Anglers are but one special interest group vying for equal access to our land.
troutologist Posted January 29, 2011 Report Posted January 29, 2011 Here is a recent example of a road closure on the Mile 38 road... about 45 minutes north of Sault Ste. Marie... hardly a "remote" area. Wow, I had no idea about this....thats a whole different animal than the flyin debate. Somewhat disconcerting, for this to be closed with no park/reserve in the works, similar to the Algoma Headwaters.
bushart Posted January 29, 2011 Report Posted January 29, 2011 This has been going on for years. Resort owners are trying to sell the illusion of remoteness to their high paying clientele. That's a hard sell when guys bail in from a road on the other end of the lake. I do not agree though that lakes will be decimated because access is allowed---current fish limits and slot sizes insure this. And if you don't obey those then a sign saying no access probably won't affect you either.
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted January 29, 2011 Report Posted January 29, 2011 (edited) Wow, I had no idea about this....thats a whole different animal than the flyin debate. Somewhat disconcerting, for this to be closed with no park/reserve in the works, similar to the Algoma Headwaters. On a personal note, they bermed the road into "Big Turkey" at Wa-booze. They come in and log our area for ten years, and when they are done, they close trails that have been there for 40 years. Edited January 29, 2011 by Dr. Salvelinus
solopaddler Posted January 29, 2011 Report Posted January 29, 2011 You obviously don't understand the gravity and magnitude of these closures. You know I'm all about sweating and effort. I pride myself on some of the remote locations I've portaged. These road closures are on such a scale they are making access to some areas impossible, not just difficult. Some people have had the road that accesses their family camp (not cottage) closed, if that isn't a slap in the face. These are small blue collar bush camps people built themselves. Something tells me if they closed access to YOUR cottage you'd be upset... or would you see the inherent good in preserving the fish stocks? I'd see the inherent good in preserving fish stocks.
Jonny Posted January 29, 2011 Report Posted January 29, 2011 (edited) The problem is one of the MNR'S attitude. They really don't want people in the bush and on the lakes. Seriously, you've got to believe that, and it all becomes clear. They want people in tight, manageable no-elbow-room areas. They employ only a small number of C.O.'s, and they don't want to hire any more. They crowd people into a limited number of accessible lakes instead of allowing the fishing pressure to diversify. They hate snowmobiles and ATV's because they can't regulate their use. They rip out perfectly good bridges and berm roads instead of posting "use at your own risk" signs. They plan logging roads to avoid lakes rather than go near them. They ignore the high demand for outdoor access from Northern residents. They regard outfitters as allies because outfitters push for sealing off large areas from public use. It all fits a perfectly understandable pattern. Edited January 29, 2011 by Jocko
Grimace Posted January 29, 2011 Report Posted January 29, 2011 The problem is one of the MNR'S attitude. They really don't want people in the bush and on the lakes. Seriously, you've got to believe that, and it all becomes clear. They want people in tight, manageable no-elbow-room areas. They employ only a small number of C.O.'s, and they don't want to hire any more. They crowd people into a limited number of accessible lakes instead of allowing the fishing pressure to diversify. They hate snowmobiles and ATV's because they can't regulate their use. They rip out perfectly good bridges and berm roads instead of posting "use at your own risk" signs. They plan logging roads to avoid lakes rather than go near them. They ignore the high demand for outdoor access from Northern residents. They regard outfitters as allies because outfitters push for sealing off large areas from public use. It all fits a perfectly understandable pattern.
chessy Posted January 29, 2011 Report Posted January 29, 2011 (edited) Thanks for the heads up, Doc. I registered and left this input: JOKO how can you say that as a ofah member or even director . the ofah stole the land from simcoe county you must be a member to hunt it . they tried recently to STEAL land (700 acers) from tax payers and have it exclusivlely for ofah members again then they tried it again last year and tried to steal the northumberland county forest the only one that can hunt it could be members, oh your going to say cause of insurance issue well under the land owners liability act the owner is not liable for any legal activity . the ofah is stealing land just like these people that have PAID 100s of thousands of dollars for land to have the right to fish it . i feel that no access be denied to anyone, because hunting and fishing is my right i am waiting for the ofah official response to this so i can shove the whole membership only thing down there throats. they are NO different . Also as of last year one of your current directors of the ofah is in favor of having land cut off because he has a buddie who owns a outfitters on lac souix and thinks it is a great idea Edited January 29, 2011 by chessy
Jonny Posted January 29, 2011 Report Posted January 29, 2011 JOKO how can you say that as a ofah member or even director . the ofah stole the land from simcoe county you must be a member to hunt it . Chessy, can you provide some links to additional information? I don't agree with private or "membership only" access to public land, so would agree with you, depending on the background.
Blue Lk Posted January 29, 2011 Report Posted January 29, 2011 I'm all for limiting public access on remote northern lakes. The more the better. What would you rather have? A fish filled lake that takes a bit of effort and sweat to access or one that you can drive to that's fished out? Most of the lakes in question here are reserved for fly-in outfitters,the tourists stay for days,limiting out each day,eating their catch so they can go out & do it again the next day & take a limit home when they leave. The locals mostly go in 1 day at a time,they should have that right.These lake are on crown land & should be accessable to all. I have several lakes that I access by atv,they are far from fished out. You cannot compare these lakes with any in the heavily populated areas in southern Ont.
chessy Posted January 29, 2011 Report Posted January 29, 2011 look for simcoe county forest. also they tried to get 700 acres in kendal hills. for members only till i called my mp and it went all the way to parlement hill and back. by the time it got back to the director of the zone I was told never to open my mouth again or my head would roll also look for northumberland county forest the ofah made a proposal to be members only after that was turned down they never showed again even after a email was sent confirming that they would attend a meeting with the mnr and northumberland county council. the mayor of my town told me how can i vote for hunting when no one came to meeting to speak on the hunters behalf.... here is a artical that was printed in the ontario out of doors years ago .. this is what they do with crown land... morgan and his bioligist should have went to jail over this i use this letter every time the land use comes up .
Jonny Posted January 30, 2011 Report Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) OK, Chessy, I read (with difficulty) the article you posted, and I also looked into Simcoe County Forest and Northumberland County Forest. I can see why you're upset. This is not really a fishing issue but it IS an access issue, as well as a privatization of public land issue. Morgan and Males certainly did seem to get a steal @ $100 an acre. Their extensive knowledge through experience with the OFAH would certainly have been a factor but it looks like they got Simcoe County to agree to their plans as private individuals rather than through the auspices of the OFAH. It's disingenuous, however, of the OFAH to say that it's not their concern. There had to be some co-operation there, since Simcoe Forest, and presumably"Buckhorn", can only be hunted now with proof of an OFAH membership. That part of it, to me, smells. I have no idea whether the county got ironclad guarantees that the Buckhorn land will be accessible to the public in perpetuity. If they didn't, the land could be worth a lot if parcelled up and sold to private owners. Seems like a complex issue. I do not agree that hunters should have to pay a user fee (in the form of an OFAH membership) to hunt on what should be publicly accessible forest for all legal uses. I could find nothing about the history of intentions for the Northumberland Forest, and it seems that it's open to the public without extra fees. But the Simcoe/Buckhorn thing, I think, is an unfortunate situation for the OFAH to be associated with. http://www.ofah.org/...ounty/intro.cfm http://www.northumbe....asp?_mid_=4764 Edited January 30, 2011 by Jocko
Jonny Posted January 30, 2011 Report Posted January 30, 2011 I wasn't aware that this OFAH issue had been discussed before. For my part I think it's done anyway.
solopaddler Posted January 30, 2011 Report Posted January 30, 2011 Most of the lakes in question here are reserved for fly-in outfitters,the tourists stay for days,limiting out each day,eating their catch so they can go out & do it again the next day & take a limit home when they leave. The locals mostly go in 1 day at a time,they should have that right.These lake are on crown land & should be accessable to all. I have several lakes that I access by atv,they are far from fished out. You cannot compare these lakes with any in the heavily populated areas in southern Ont. I'm well aware of the fact it's fly in lakes with outfitters on them. You don't get it do you? You won't have a fish filled lake that takes effort to get to because you'll get fined for trying unless your an outfitter with an access agreement! You're making a pretty large assumption there. Of course I "get" it. If I want to I can still paddle and portage my way in. Or even better fly in with an outfitter. You guys are trying to say that ATV accessable lakes are not as fished out as ones aren't accessable by ATV? There's plenty of lakes that DON'T have outfitters on them. Find one and go wild.
aplumma Posted January 30, 2011 Report Posted January 30, 2011 Keep it to the facts and stop name calling or it will be locked. Art
Grimace Posted January 30, 2011 Report Posted January 30, 2011 Over moderating. A theme lately. We are intelligent enough to dicipher Bull from fact. I would rsther sort through it myself thank you.
Recommended Posts