Jonny Posted January 30, 2011 Report Posted January 30, 2011 Here's one of the key problems: Public pressure for access is increasing (more people, more equipment, more recreational hours), and yet at the same time the MNR is taking large blocks of public land out of circulation, as well as destroying relatively new roads and bridges in many non-"tourism" areas. The public is getting hit with a double-whammy, and it's deliberate because the MNR doesn't want to be bothered with enforcement and management of fish and wildlife beyond a certain minimum. Now forestry is a different issue; they're all over that like flies on roadkill. But that's got to do with companies, not the public. Solopaddler, you may eventually find that your canoe/portage access is illegal as well. As a matter of fact, if I'm not mistaken, there are already Remote Tourism areas where you are not allowed to fish the lakes, rivers or even creeks, no matter what your method of access; they are reserved for outfitters alone. The domino effect may one day have you sharing your "remote" experience with a gaggle of other disgruntled canoeists who have been squeezed out of tourism-designated Crown Land areas. The "As long as its them and not me" attitude could come back to bite you.
solopaddler Posted January 30, 2011 Report Posted January 30, 2011 Solopaddler, you may eventually find that your canoe/portage access is illegal as well. As a matter of fact, if I'm not mistaken, there are already Remote Tourism areas where you are not allowed to fish the lakes, rivers or even creeks, no matter what your method of access; they are reserved for outfitters alone. Give me one single example in Ontario, I dare you. Certain roads have and will be restricted but no outfitter has exclusive rights to a lake. This is not Quebec where many outfitters have exclusive rights or Labrador where a non resident is required to use an outfitter or a guide.
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted January 30, 2011 Report Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) I think the fact that some of these road closures have NOTHING to do with tourist outfitters is being lost in this discussion. I don't want the majority to think these closures are ONLY being done in the name of protecting outfitters, as some of them are being closed, bridges pulled and bermed for the sole reason that the mnr doesn't want to be liable. One road in particular within an hour of sault ste. marie accesses about 15 different lakes over a distance that is too far to portage. Factor in that that are somewhere between 15-20 LEGALLY BUILT camps on leased land, and you have a very complicated matter with some hard working people who can no longer go to their piece of paradise, and can not get any compensation back (either from the MNR or by selling it). These are by no means "remote" lakes, and are not being closed off to enhance the fishery... they are being closed off because the MNR can't afford to police them. The tourist outfitter issue is but one facet of the sneaky things the MNR has been doing up here. Honestly solo, you know where i spend my time when I get the chance. I've done some pretty epic portages into some of the finest brookie water in the world, and it's my favourite type of fishing. I love the remote experience, and I love knowing that the work I do that others won't results in fish. But the mile 38 road is a highly travelled, high pressure area with a lot of family camps. Taking that away from people may not be criminally wrong, but ethically? I think it's shameful. Edited January 30, 2011 by Dr. Salvelinus
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted January 30, 2011 Report Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) Give me one single example in Ontario, I dare you. Certain roads have and will be restricted but no outfitter has exclusive rights to a lake. This is not Quebec where many outfitters have exclusive rights or Labrador where a non resident is required to use an outfitter or a guide. there is water near wawa/white river that the only access road to the lake is private and you are not allowed to walk on it. under the public lands act they call these "private bush roads" or something like that. pretty sneaky eh? so yes, you can portage to the lake as long as you do it bushbashing. we talked about the issue at great length in my natural resource law class, and how someone was charged because they rode their bicycle past the gate and down the road into the lake. they are also monopolizing the game tags in the area. anybody try and get a moose tag in the last decade in algoma? Edited January 30, 2011 by Dr. Salvelinus
moparhawk 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'll throw this out there. This has never been my experience.Our Lodge has two driveout lakes with his boats cached , and a daily flyout service thru an outfitter. You are not allowed to keep any fish, not even for shore lunch. The lakes are amazing. Big fish counts and sizes. Maybe how alot of lakes were many years ago. The fishing hasn't changed in many years. Driveouts are $50.00 a day and the flyout is $200.00 a day per man so you have to pay to play buy its very special. The lakes I've fished on Crown land do not allow any harvest.
chilli Posted January 31, 2011 Report Posted January 31, 2011 What a crappy deal. The MNR couldn't afford to do a good job so we agree to pay userfees to add to fish and wildlife funding. They say thank you very much then pull their share of the funding. Now we're on the hook for F&W funding and can't do it on selected public lands because the MNR would rather promote tourism. How much money are they pulling fro the tourism budget to fund fish and wildlife project! I say we all tell them to scrap the idea or we refuse to renew our licences or buy hunt tags. They can manage the excess bears that tourists feed and deal with the CWD with the money the outfitters earn off this deal. I keep hearing no one is speaking up for the anglers and hunters in Ontario but how many would actually stand in solidarity and not buy a licence until this ministry got its head on straight?
Grimace Posted January 31, 2011 Report Posted January 31, 2011 I would not bite my nose off to spite my face. I would not stop fishing because I am mad at the Mnr because they wouldn't allow me to access some fishing waters. Something has to be done but I do not think that is the answer. I have almost every cent of my disposable income locked up in fishing and outdoors. Where is your precious OFAH in all of this? What is their position? Do they have one?
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted January 31, 2011 Report Posted January 31, 2011 Where is your precious OFAH in all of this? I would hazard a guess that many of the remote lodges in question likely advertise in Ontario Out of Doors. Or maybe they are busy working on a new t-shirt design?
Grimace Posted January 31, 2011 Report Posted January 31, 2011 Non profit at it's finest. I think this will be my last year of membership.
chessy Posted January 31, 2011 Report Posted January 31, 2011 like i posted earlier the ofah said they are not in favor of restricting access to land. at least that is what OFAH land use specilist Matt Demille says the ofah works to ensure that anglers and hunters get there FARE share of opportunities on page 9 of this months ood mag " we also reqonize the the importance of remote hunting and fishing for the resource based tourism industrry and acknowledge that site specific situation may require reasonable public access restrictions. but the very first answer was availability and accessibility to public land is essential for the continued enjoyment of hunting and fishing as well as the future recruitment of new hunters .. so which is it matt Demille all for one or one for all. any one else read the mag and could give me there two cents worth .. i know i am bias and some time read things wrong . but this is black and white i think
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted January 31, 2011 Report Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) like i posted earlier the ofah said they are not in favor of restricting access to land. at least that is what OFAH land use specilist Matt Demille says the ofah works to ensure that anglers and hunters get there FARE share of opportunities on page 9 of this months ood mag " we also reqonize the the importance of remote hunting and fishing for the resource based tourism industrry and acknowledge that site specific situation may require reasonable public access restrictions. but the very first answer was availability and accessibility to public land is essential for the continued enjoyment of hunting and fishing as well as the future recruitment of new hunters .. so which is it matt Demille all for one or one for all. any one else read the mag and could give me there two cents worth .. i know i am bias and some time read things wrong . but this is black and white i think Both special interest groups pay his salary, thus he's not willing to throw either under the bus. He'd make a wonderful politician! Edited January 31, 2011 by Dr. Salvelinus
Grimace Posted January 31, 2011 Report Posted January 31, 2011 In fairness to the OFAH Chessy, when I read that I thought they were putting across a moderate view of give and take and trying to do what is best for everybody involved. BUT and a big one is that the vagueness of it did not do much to make one think about the issue though. The statement seemed to be engineered to make one stop thinking. So I will give you that.
bigugli Posted January 31, 2011 Report Posted January 31, 2011 I do not like this notion that the MNR will cut off access to Crown Land whenever it finds it convenient. It is a bad practice. They want our money and taxes. They want us to be involved and volunteer. In return they stick it too the average taxpayer. I do not like the notion of 2 tiered privileges for accessing our resources. That any lake on Crown Land is the private preserve only for those who can pay. As for protecting lodge interests, there is another side to the coin; jobs. Lodges and outfitters provide jobs which bring money into the local economy.It is a big consideration to every bureaucrat and politician. Jobs = votes. From my experience, the Outdoors community has had inadequate influence at the ballot box.
chessy Posted January 31, 2011 Report Posted January 31, 2011 In fairness to the OFAH Chessy, when I read that I thought they were putting across a moderate view of give and take and trying to do what is best for everybody involved. BUT and a big one is that the vagueness of it did not do much to make one think about the issue though. The statement seemed to be engineered to make one stop thinking. So I will give you that. read the whole artical and make up your mind ....but i think you will come to the same conclusion as me ... does that not scare you ??
Jonny Posted January 31, 2011 Report Posted January 31, 2011 Give me one single example in Ontario, I dare you. You DARE me? What I wrote to you was maybe not to your liking, but it was polite, and you DARE me. Nice. On the strength of that I should just ignore you. In another thread in this forum, I wrote this well over a year ago... Posted 01 September 2009 - 10:22 PM In the Chapleau Remote Tourism Zones it is not only illegal to access with a motorized vehicle, it is also illegal to fish the zone unless brought in by an outfitter. You can't walk in and fish a little creek for specks, for example, even if the creek is miles away from a lake that houses an outpost camp. That was the information that was conveyed to us at one time when I was a member of the Timmins Golden Nugget Conservation Club. I can't remember the exact source but it was conveyed in no uncertain terms, either from a C.O. or an MNR representative. Even if that were not the case (and I did qualify what I said, if you'll check), you might still be out of luck with your portaging. If you have to use a road to reach a spot where you can put into a creek or river that will eventually give you access to a remote tourism lake, all they have to do is designate a larger area and move the road closure sign further away from the lake. They seem to be doing just that sort of thing in the Dubreuilville area. I think you may be making a mistake by thinking that because you do not rely on motorized access as much as others, that you are immune from any effects. The avowed goal of NOTO for years has been to deny ALL public access to all remote lakes where their members operate. They've already achieved quite a chunk of that.
chessy Posted January 31, 2011 Report Posted January 31, 2011 intresting read In a Nov. 24, 2010, Daily Press story, Natural Resources Minister Linda Jeffrey says: "You can still access the Crown land by hiking or portaging." This statement indicates the public is not trespassing on Crown land, so what is the offence? To this day it remains unclear on whether a section of the Public Lands Act can be used to enforce a policy that restricts access to motorized vehicles on Crown land. Currently, there is no public awareness for being denied access with motorized vehicles for fishing and hunting in the Ontario Recreational Summary. If any person is charged for an offence by an MNR official for operating a vehicle beyond the posted sign of a zones or designated tourist lake, they should consider the option of taking it to court and letting a judge decide whether it's legal or not. Roger Piché, Timmins P.S. Lumber companies get the wood, the tourist industry gets control of land and lakes, while local anglers and hunters pay for the signs and get the restrictions!
solopaddler Posted January 31, 2011 Report Posted January 31, 2011 You DARE me? What I wrote to you was maybe not to your liking, but it was polite, and you DARE me. Nice. On the strength of that I should just ignore you. In another thread in this forum, I wrote this well over a year ago... That was the information that was conveyed to us at one time when I was a member of the Timmins Golden Nugget Conservation Club. I can't remember the exact source but it was conveyed in no uncertain terms, either from a C.O. or an MNR representative. Even if that were not the case (and I did qualify what I said, if you'll check), you might still be out of luck with your portaging. If you have to use a road to reach a spot where you can put into a creek or river that will eventually give you access to a remote tourism lake, all they have to do is designate a larger area and move the road closure sign further away from the lake. They seem to be doing just that sort of thing in the Dubreuilville area. I think you may be making a mistake by thinking that because you do not rely on motorized access as much as others, that you are immune from any effects. The avowed goal of NOTO for years has been to deny ALL public access to all remote lakes where their members operate. They've already achieved quite a chunk of that. Buddy you need to calm down. It never ceases to amaze me how some people react on the winternet. If you thought my previous statement was inflammatory in any way then I'm sorry. Regarding the meat of your response it's patently untrue. I'd suggest that before you engage in discussion on an open forum you learn the facts.
jonnybass Posted January 31, 2011 Report Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) I find this outrageous. Restricting access to public land and lakes is an example of government overreach. The "liability" argument is laughable. There are over 400,000 bodies of water in Ontario - Should government agencies block roads and destroy existing bridges to any areas that cannot be readily "policed" due to budgetary constraints? Remind me again who owns crown land? Edited January 31, 2011 by jonnybass
solopaddler Posted January 31, 2011 Report Posted January 31, 2011 For those that are missing the point specific access roads to lakes with (usually) fly in outfitters operating on them are being restricted. This is done to protect the interests of the outfitter. This is also nothing new, it's been done for decades. Nobody is stopping anyone from accessing a body of water via OTHER means. Either paddle or portage in without using the restricted road or find another lake. I'll wager there's few who've fished as many backs lakes as I have over the years. I've never had any issues either finding a suitable lake or catching fish. I've also seen first hand fisheries literally decimated by new roads opening up otherwise untouched bodies of water.
jonnybass Posted January 31, 2011 Report Posted January 31, 2011 For those that are missing the point specific access roads to lakes with (usually) fly in outfitters operating on them are being restricted. This is done to protect the interests of the outfitter. I actually find that even more offensive than the liability argument. I'm pro-business, believe me, but I don't believe that access to public lakes should be restricted in any way for the sole benefit of private business owners.
Jonny Posted January 31, 2011 Report Posted January 31, 2011 Buddy you need to calm down. It never ceases to amaze me how some people react on the winternet. If you thought my previous statement was inflammatory in any way then I'm sorry. Regarding the meat of your response it's patently untrue. I'd suggest that before you engage in discussion on an open forum you learn the facts. If I wasn't calm, I wouldn't have replied. Solopaddler, you may eventually find that your canoe/portage access is illegal as well. As a matter of fact, if I'm not mistaken, there are already Remote Tourism areas where you are not allowed to fish the lakes, rivers or even creeks, no matter what your method of access; they are reserved for outfitters alone. I think you missed the bolded qualifier. You say it's not so. Fine. We'll go with that for now. But aside from that, I'll stick to the caution I suggested to you. Air Ivanhoe (based in Foleyet) offers this information - "In 1954 our family picked the best remote lakes in the area. Outfitters that came later ended up with the smaller lakes, and we operate on the choice locations in the area." 1954 - more than half a century ago. It's no surprise that the lakes have become considerably less "remote" with the passage of time. At that time there was no Hwy 101 from Timmins to Foleyet and Hwy. 17 ended somewhere just north of Sault Ste. Marie. Something I posted some time ago in another thread... Posted 02 September 2009 - 11:49 AM 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?
solopaddler Posted January 31, 2011 Report Posted January 31, 2011 If I wasn't calm, I wouldn't have replied. Really? Because your response would suggest otherwise. Air Ivanhoe (based in Foleyet) offers this information - "In 1954 our family picked the best remote lakes in the area. Outfitters that came later ended up with the smaller lakes, and we operate on the choice locations in the area."[/size][/font][/color] 1954 - more than half a century ago. It's no surprise that the lakes have become considerably less "remote" with the passage of time. At that time there was no Hwy 101 from Timmins to Foleyet and Hwy. 17 ended somewhere just north of Sault Ste. Marie. The Ontario government issued land use permits to the outfitters for their fly in outpost camps. (I say "issued" because they're rarely granting any new ones, they havn't for years) Obviously if a lake is too small they're not going to issue multiple permits to several different outfitters. Some larger lakes do operate with several different outfitters on them. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing stopping anyone with a plane including other outfitters from flying into a lake with another outfitters camp on it. Outfitters will never do this though. There's an unspoken agreement that they won't infringe on their competitors lakes. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing stopping me or you from paddling and portaging via legal means into a lake with an outpost camp on it, I've done it many times. So when Air Ivanhoe says they've had the choice locations since 1954 that means they've held the land use permit for that particular lake since 1954. It DOES NOT mean they own exclusive rights to that body of water.
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted January 31, 2011 Report Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) For those that are missing the point I'm pretty sure you're missing the point... They aren't just closing roads to protect outfitters. There is no outfitter at my families old farmhouse that my great grandfather built 80 years ago. Nor is it remote as it is located under 10 km from Searchmont Ski Resort. They have barricaded a road at my camp this fall that led to a productive speck lake that is less than 3km as the crow flies from our camp. Yes, I could portage a canoe that distance as I have done many times... but why should I have to? There are also no outfitters on the McDonald Ck. Road up the Mile 38 road... Just family camps. It won't be until lodges are burned down by irate northerners (as has been done in Quebec) that the magnitude of this problem is realized by southerners like you who just don't get it. Edited January 31, 2011 by Dr. Salvelinus
Spiel Posted January 31, 2011 Report Posted January 31, 2011 Seems to be getting more than a little personal. If you want to express your concerns, here is the link. http://ontora.ca/ont...-1/#comment-223
Recommended Posts