chessy Posted August 16, 2011 Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 I came across this while surfing i can not for the life of me see how they (mnr ) can seal up the land for outfitters and i can not see how the OFAH can agree to a 2km radious they are fighing for it but they should be fighing for a complete area accessed by all http://www.ofah.org/downloads/pdf/news/2011/PreliminaryOFAHResponse_CLUAH_Stage_III.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dara Posted August 16, 2011 Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 I came across this while surfing i can not for the life of me see how they (mnr ) can seal up the land for outfitters and i can not see how the OFAH can agree to a 2km radious they are fighing for it but they should be fighing for a complete area accessed by all http://www.ofah.org/downloads/pdf/news/2011/PreliminaryOFAHResponse_CLUAH_Stage_III.pdf I think lake simcoe should be designated as no access except for walking within 2 km...maybe Rice as well...lets get the remote factor back to southern Ontario where they come up with this crap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12footspringbok Posted August 16, 2011 Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 I think lake simcoe should be designated as no access except for walking within 2 km...maybe Rice as well...lets get the remote factor back to southern Ontario where they come up with this crap Don't give them any ideas. Seriously Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted August 16, 2011 Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 Total Bull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dara Posted August 16, 2011 Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 Don't give them any ideas. Seriously Why not...I think its a great idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dara Posted August 16, 2011 Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 Total Bull. You know ther'e gonna lock this on us eh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted August 16, 2011 Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) i don't think they'll lock it up. as more and more people have negative experiences regarding the way our crown land is being managed, the more likely we will see changes in the future. it's about time that OFAH did SOMETHING about this even if it's a small contribution. Edited August 16, 2011 by Dr. Salvelinus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chessy Posted August 16, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 i don't think they'll lock it up. as more and more people have negative experiences regarding the way our crown land is being managed, the more likely we will see changes in the future. it's about time that OFAH did SOMETHING about this even if it's a small contribution. but the OFAH is in favor of a 2km ban from the way i read it ....they should be in favor of it being wide open..... i know i can not be pro ofah only when i want to ... that is why the ofah should not speak for us.... i am sending in my own ebr comment that it should remain open to all people .... its our tax dollars that are paying for this..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted August 16, 2011 Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 I think lake simcoe should be designated as no access except for walking within 2 km...maybe Rice as well...lets get the remote factor back to southern Ontario where they come up with this crap with the towns closing/selling ramps and access spots, no parking signs and no parking with trailers signs, they have almost done it anyways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dara Posted August 16, 2011 Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 we should all be joining in this one. http://www.thedailypress.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3233363 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dara Posted August 16, 2011 Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 with the towns closing/selling ramps and access spots, no parking signs and no parking with trailers signs, they have almost done it anyways Just think of the money land owners will be able to make....just like the outfitters...more taxes to be paid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12footspringbok Posted August 16, 2011 Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 Just think of the money land owners will be able to make....just like the outfitters...more taxes to be paid Thats one angle but i feel there are many more. One of the most frightening being UN's agenda 21 and returning certain parts of North America back to the wild and creating areas that are off limits to humans, but I won't go any further on that topic here on OFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted August 16, 2011 Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TzEEgtOFFlM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walleyejigger Posted August 16, 2011 Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 we should all be joining in this one. http://www.thedailypress.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3233363 I'll be there Dara, boat and all, anybody else participating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icedude Posted August 16, 2011 Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 with the towns closing/selling ramps and access spots, no parking signs and no parking with trailers signs, they have almost done it anyways True Enuff Terry R with a circle Sorry to learn the 'Plain Clothed" Team came at you all like Rambo on your Fly In Adventure Yah the Machete would be MY first response as well Dude Take Care Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dara Posted August 16, 2011 Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 If they do one in Wawa I will be there...there are a few good lakes up that way I want to fish yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spincast Posted August 16, 2011 Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 Soma anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookinforwalleye Posted August 16, 2011 Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TzEEgtOFFlM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Did he say Socialist? Say it aint so!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimace Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) Soma anyone? Brave New World is a great book. The way this world is heading, I wouldn't mind some soma myself. Edited August 17, 2011 by Grimace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spincast Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 Brave New World is a great book. The way this world is heading, I wouldn't mind some soma myself. Gonna need it if that UN 21 poopoopeedoop comes anywhere close to happening. Loonies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adempsey Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 I can't say that I read through all the governments proposed policies, but I do support the increased conservation and protection of the remote lakes. If I understand the OFAH position, it looks like they want to increase access to all these remote lakes. To me that just seems counter to their supposed stance on conservation. I'll have to spend some time wading my way through that web of government documents to better educate myself on this proposal. I believe September 1st 2011 is that last day for public comment. Thanks for posting that link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irishfield Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 It's like Lady Evelyn/Smoothwater. 3 years ago they made it so canoers can pay to have them and their canoe flown in, but I can't fly my own wife in and drop her and her canoe off. Get my markings and I'll see you in tribunal ! We were shown one draft that was acceptable to the flying community and then they passed a different document thru the gazette ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dara Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) I can't say that I read through all the governments proposed policies, but I do support the increased conservation and protection of the remote lakes. If I understand the OFAH position, it looks like they want to increase access to all these remote lakes. To me that just seems counter to their supposed stance on conservation. I'll have to spend some time wading my way through that web of government documents to better educate myself on this proposal. I believe September 1st 2011 is that last day for public comment. Thanks for posting that link. It has nothing to do with conservation and protection. If it was then they would outlaw aircraft access as well. it is totally to protect the flyin camps. People in the north have limited recreation available. Therefore they fish and enjoy the outdoors. They are having their recreation land taken away from them so tourist operators can make a buck. Like I saidrestrict access to simcoe and rice before you before you limit northerners access Educate yourself on life in the north before you make laws to control it Edited August 17, 2011 by Dara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) I can't say that I read through all the governments proposed policies, but I do support the increased conservation and protection of the remote lakes. This is nothing to do with conservation. Conservation would be limiting access to all to preserve the fishery. This is just a case of auctioning off our resources to the highest bidder. A truly remote lake doesn't have parties of anglers staying on it every week. Edited August 17, 2011 by Dr. Salvelinus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adempsey Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 The way I see it is that limiting access to a fishery is indeed a form of conservation. I think there is plenty of evidence to support the impact on the fishery when access is less restrictive. Why does it have to be black and white - no access or complete access? Why no middle ground? That is where everyone benefits in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now