Privilages
The item in the below relates to privileges to construct access roads to private properties, and it should be of special interest to owners of mainland properties that still do not have road access.

Courtesy of Anne Young on lot 25, Anstruther Lake, we are sending you a copy of the first page of a five-page memorandum that was provided to purchasers of Crown land cottage lots in Cavendish and Anstruther Townships (they were in the same Lands and Forests District it seems) circa 1958.

Notice in paragraph four that it clearly implies that, at their own expense, purchasers were permitted to put in roads.  Of course this conforms with our observations for the past 45, or more, years .  There is no valid reason why this decades-old tradition of permitting cottagers to construct private property access roads should suddenly be curtailed for the last 10% (roughly) of property owners still without road-access.
 
 

Park management plan!!
The blue pen comments on the letter below were ours and no reply was ever received. This was a two sided document with the map below on the back.We have phoned (Sept 2002)the office of the existing park superintendant to request the disposition of the mentioned management plan. No reply has been received.

The reader will perhaps understand our problem with the Ministry's current promises.
 
 

page 2

 
 
 
 
 

Provided with permission of The Globe and mail, Laszlo Buhasz and Prof. Paul Eagles

page 1

page 2
 
 

 page 3

I had not heard of the $102,000,000 mentioned in the twelfth paragraph of page 2 so I called Buhasz to determine his source.

His source was the article by Mackie below, which puts a different spin on the $102,000,000 and where it is likely to go.  Other articles I have read suggest that not much of it will wind up in infrastructure.  More studies, etc. will gobble up chunks of it (e.g. a large contract was awarded last Spring to study the social and economic impacts of the nine signature site, to be concluded a few years down the road. The study is supposed to determine "benchmarks" which, presumably, should be determined before development of infrastructure, etc. begins. )

In March 2001 Ron Speck, who is the Superintendent for the existing KHPP attended a Council Meeting in Cavendish.  He did not seem to know about the $102,000,000, and conveyed no optimism regarding getting any of it.

Prof. Paul Eagles commented on the article by Buhasz; and when I last talked to him on September 7th, 2001, he reconfirmed his position as stated and gave me permission to use his letter.
 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Buhasz, Laszlo" <LBuhasz@globeandmail.ca>
To: <whitesands@primus.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 4:14 PM
Subject: parks article

 Tories to seek green image with park ad blitz

 Public concern about government's role
 on environment is rising, document warns

 Friday, January 26, 2001
 RICHARD MACKIE

 TORONTO -- Ontario's Progressive Conservative government is planning a multimillion-dollar advertising and publicity campaign promoting provincial parks to try to counter public concern about lack of protection of the environment, confidential government documents say.

 The campaign, which will provide numerous opportunities for Premier Mike Harris to talk about provincial parks, is seen as a way to overcome fallout from the contaminated water that killed seven in Walkerton and from anxiety about air pollution.

 The campaign is detailed in a submission to the cabinet, a copy of which was obtained by The Globe and Mail. It calls for the government to "turn up the volume" on its promotion of parks as a way to get positive publicity for its "environmental stewardship."

 According to the submission, the government wants to maximize political benefit from the announcement last November that it will spend $102-million to expand the parks system.

 Liberal MPP David Ramsay said the submission shows that the government "is trying to buy a good environmental image using taxpayers' dollars."

 The focus of the campaign will be what the government calls Ontario's Living Legacy. It will argue that the government has delivered "378 new parks and protected areas, greater security for
 resource-based industries, increased tourism opportunities . . . more hope for species at risk."

 To publicize the parks, the government will spend millions of dollars on television commercials and newspaper advertising. No overall budget is included in the submission.

 However, there is a proposed budget for an exhibit at the Toronto Sportsmen's Show in March. It would cost $272,000. The marketing strategy in the submission calls for Mr. Harris to open the show in a burst of publicity.

 A coffee-table book of photos taken in parks "would highlight the province's natural beauty while quietly reinforcing the government's environmental commitment and vision." The book is to have a picture of Mr. Harris and an introduction by him.

 The cabinet submission cites public-opinion surveys that "suggest a strong probability that the environment will continue to rise to the top of the public agenda."

 Further, the submission warns, "Tracking data suggest that Ontarians' expectations of the role of government in environmental protection are increasing."

 In the face of these expectations, the submission notes that the government faces political problems because of concern about "Oak Ridges moraine, safety of drinking water, fluctuating water levels, acid rain, climate change."

Bob and Gord,

As mentioned above I discussed the letter below with Paul Eagles who reconfirmed this information was correct as of September 7th, 2001.
 

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Paul F. J. Eagles [mailto:eagles@healthy.uwaterloo.ca]
 Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 7:54 PM
 To: lbuhasz@GlobeAndMail.ca
 Cc: ross@healthy.uwaterloo.ca
 Subject: Lining up for Nature
 

 Laszlo Bhuasz, Travel Writer, Globe and Mail.

 Thank you for the article on limits to use in parks and outdoor recreation
 sites. As a professor of park planning and management at the University of
 Waterloo, I would like to make a few comments.

 You correctly report that the use of Ontario Provincial Park campgrounds is
 increasing. Since the telephone registration system was introduced province
 wide a couple of years ago the usage has increased significantly. When
 people are assured of a camp site, they are more likely to plan ahead and
 to visit the parks. The first year of the 800 number saw an increase in
 500,000 visitor nights. All of this use is in the 107 operating provincial
 parks, that is the 107 parks that have budgets and staff. All the other
 parks have no staff, and no budget.

 You correctly point out that Ontario is again in the process of
 establishing new provincial parks. What is not mentioned is that none of
 these will have any staff or recreation facilities. Ontario now has 220
 employees for the existing 272 parks. Yes, less than one full time employee
 per park. The vast majority of employees used to service the public are
 summer students or concessionaire staff, who are also short term employees.

 Killarney Provincial Park, a park with over 90% occupancy the entire
 camping season, is adding a few campsites this year. However, this is the
 first addition of new campsites in Ontario Provincial Parks in 20 years.
 Governments of all types, and especially the Harris administration, have
 severely cut all provincial park operating budgets, and provided very
 little capital funding for the last decade.

 With the increase in camping demand, Ontario Provincial Parks need more
 campsites. Of the 272 parks existing before Lands for LIfe, only 107 were
 operating, that is had staff or facilities. Of the new parks and
 conservation reserves being created now after Lands for Life  none have
 staff or facilities and none are planned. Ontario is going to create
 hundreds of new parks without any new staff or recreation facilities. This
 will take Ontario to one of the lowest park to staff ratios in the world,
 under .5 staff per park.

 The Ontario Provincial Park systems is one of the largest park systems run
 by a province or state in the world. It has amble land that could be used
 for new campgrounds. However, this would take people and money, something
 that the existing government will not provide.

 I hope that these comments add context to your excellent article.
 
 
 

 Paul F. J. Eagles, Professor,
 Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies,
 University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. N2L 3G1

 Personal Web Page: http://www.ahs.uwaterloo.ca/~eagles/

 and

 Chair, Task Force on Tourism and Protected Areas,
 World Commission on Protected Areas,
 World Conservation Union (IUCN).
 Gland, Switzerland.

 Task Force Web Page: http://wcpa.iucn.org/taskforce/tourism/tourism.html
 and http://www.ahs.uwaterloo.ca/rec/title.html
 

Kawartha Highlands Project Office,
Ministry of Natural Resources,
106 Monck Street, P.O. Box 500,
Bancroft, Ontario, K0L 1C0

Re: EBR# PB00E3003

I received the Recommendation Report on the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site, which is dated November 2001 on October 11th, 2002.  I can not fathom why it took eleven months to receive this report and given until October 31st,  2002 to digest and respond with our comments.  I can only assume the delay  was to assimilate the dialogue that has been in progress over a long period as  input, only to be ignored.

In the preamble to the recommendations it is ironic that the vast majority of the comments printed are in favour of the area to be deemed a Provincial Park.  Whatever happened to the descending letters and emails from advocates against the Provincial Park designation?  The Local Stakeholders Committee did not listen to the landowner wishes and factual data presented to  them and choose to ignore or hide them.

The recommendations made by NOKLA which were originally approved by the council of North Kawartha and subsequently rescinded (under strange circumstances) should be given top priority and incorporated in any decision to  protect the present landowners in the proposed park area.

As a cottage owner on Anstruther Lake for 44 years and the many problems that face us who have water access to our cottages, the proposed plan by the  Local Stakeholders Committee will leave us as second class citizens without  access to our cottages.  As we age it gets more difficult to continue to  enjoy the cottage.  We must have everything brought in to the cottage by  loading and unloading the boat.  At this point in our lives, at the age of  69, it means that we may not be able to continue to enjoy our cottage in our  GOLDEN YEARS.  A road would enable us to make use of the cottage for a much longer time.  I have now received a lovely brochure from the owners of the Landing indicating the pre-sale of 25 "Cottage Town Homes".  The brochure indicates "Enjoy the pride and  benefits of owning within a provincial park".  Is this a "done  deal" that we are unaware of or is there some undisclosed agenda?  The  development has been approved by the North Kawartha Council and is now in its  final stages.  Water access owners will be at a loss for docking  facilities.

A road through General Use Crown Land that was identified prior to the Lands for Life and the Ontario Living Legacy initiative should be addressed.  By identifying a reserve of General Use Crown Land for future road access around Anstruther Lake or any other populated lake would enable cottage owners to access their cottage and would also cause less pollution to  our lakes.  Since there are many trails in the entire area that were logging roads with no adverse effects to the environment a road over these trails should become a reality.

The Stakeholders Groups of the Kawartha Highlands have presented many arguments and suggestions why this area should not become a Provincial Park as  indicated by the MNR.  I fully concur with the SGKH recommendations and I  would like to add that I would suggest that the heavily populated lakes be  excluded from a park designation.

I personally attended the meeting at Wilson Park Community Centre October 22, 2002 for the presentation by MNR to the North Kawartha Council. Although the meeting was open to the public for public input, I found this to be  an effort in futility.  Public input was limited to one written question  per individual for an original 20 minutes and later extended to 30 minutes with  very few questions being answered and those that were read and answered where  not answered satisfactorily.  No direct answers given by the  representatives of the MNR.  Since this was a public meeting, whatever  happened to our democratic right to seek answers and rebuttal to our concerns  and questions - we were silenced!  I received an email less than 24 hours  prior to the meeting not from the Council of North Kawartha,
the LSC or the  Ministry of Natural Resources.  It appears to me that public input was  unwanted otherwise we would have been given proper notice.

It was stated at the October 22nd meeting that application for a road  to the north and north west on Anstruther Lake had been turned down due to environmental concerns.  May I suggest that this statement is not entirely true.  The first attempt, to my knowledge, to have a road to service the north end failed due to insufficient response from cottage owners.  The second attempt by Mr. Trotter was sabotaged by unknown person or persons and  obviously would have become a reality if this act had not been committed.

I agree that the area should remain a protected area but with the Government struggling with funds, I do not foresee how this vast area can
be  maintained in a responsible manner.  I urge you to consider excluding ALL  the populated lakes in this from any Park designation.

Prior to any decision on the implementation of a Provincial Park I urge you to consider the short comings of the recommendations made by the LSC and consider factual information that has been presented to the LSC and the Kawartha  Highlands Project Office.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my opinion and look forward to your consideration in this matter.

Yours very truly,
Lydia Dobbin,
253 Davidson St.,
Pickering, Ontario
L1V 2P9
Lot #1052 Anstruther Lake

Dear Friend, and Honourable Jerry Ouellette,

Your mailing of September 23, 2002 was a welcome relief from the worst example of Canadian democracy that I have had the misfortune
to experience.
In my opinion, the conduct of the Chair, and of the Co-Chair of the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site Local Stakeholder Committee from August 2001 through to their recent municipal council meeting, yes the same two chair, and co-chair the council where they took advantage of local fatal tragedy, and in the absence of a comforting (to the stricken families) councillor, they both seized advantage, placed a junior councillor in the chair, and proceeded, to reverse a full council prior decision of non-support for the K.H.S.S. L.S.C. recommendations, has been an insult to those that believe that fair play, and honesty will always prevail. Please confirm, to me, that I am not naive.
The following attachment, best responds to your request for feedback.

Kind regards,

Don Cassidy  (Cottager, Lot 30 Big Cedar Lake).

October 20, 2002
(enclosure below)
 

North Kawartha Lakes Association (NORKLA)
 

A Response to the OLLLSC Final Recommendation    Ref. EBR # PB00E3003
 

NORKLA is an umbrella group representing some ten lakes in North Kawartha Township.  The group has followed the entire Kawartha Highlands Signature Site (KHSS) process very closely since inception of the concept.

It is without hesitation, that the vast majority of this group welcomes some form of protection for the area.  However, the information available to NORKLA leaves us feeling very vulnerable with a cookie-cutter designation of "Operating Provincial Park."

As we have repeated on several occasions, should the area be designated as a Provincial Park, we are very sincerely concerned in a number of areas.  Please allow us to list a few:

1. With plans to cease an "operating" status on several provincial parks in Ontario, it will leave only 1/3 of the 265 parks as "operating".  With continued pressure to balance the books, and while competing with heavy-weight issues such as health care and education, how will the Government guarantee perpetual funding so that our children and grand-children will not suffer the consequences when management stops but the people keep coming to the area?
2. As property owners, what guarantees do we have that our ability to put roads, telephones or hydro to our cottages won’t be impaired or denied?
3. Many of us hunt, fish, snowmobile, fly, boat and many other recreational activities.  Can we assume that all of our traditional rights will be upheld?
4. What about essential logging?  How will logging be managed in a provincial park?
5. The site has already reached or nearly reached capacity, based on the Meteek report.  With large-scale advertising, and the vast roads in and out of the area, it is very certain that the population explosion will over-stress the already fragile ecosystem of granite and very little soil.  In spite of trying to protect the area, we honestly feel that the wetlands and entire site will deteriorate significantly.  How can we possibly allow this to happen?

A very large majority of the stakeholders within the proposed site sincerely believe that a Provincial Park is not in the best interest of municipal governments, the province or us.   Many people have spent a lot of time offering the government more economically viable options than the choice of a park.  A co-stewardship management approach is a proven method to administer the area in terms of being a practical, economical, viable solution.

We ask that the KHSS process be re-evaluated by a balanced group of stakeholders from the many people involved in the process.  There are many good ideas that make logical, practical and common sense.  We ask that you would discuss them with us.
 

RECOMMENDATION:

Whereas the July newsletter from the chair Elizabeth Tanner of the LSC states  "final recommendation of our (OLLLSC) mandate" was completed August 31st, 2002

And Whereas the Honourable Jerry Ouellette Minister of Natural Resources has "urged interested parties to respond to the OLLLSC Recommendations Report

And Whereas the LSC Recommendation Report recommends an Operational Provincial Park

And Whereas the majority of Stakeholders in the affected area do not support a Provincial Park designation

And Whereas the MNR 2001-2002 business plan states "The Ministry will consult on new approaches to future land use and natural resource planning on Crown Land."

And Whereas the OLLLSC Recommendation Report states the requirement that "specific legislation developed"

And Whereas the OLLLSC Recommendation Report states that "a co-stewardship management committee" be established

the North Kawartha Lakes Assn. strongly urges the Minister of Natural Resources, Jerry Ouellette, to delay his response to the LSC Recommendation Report and immediately form "a co-stewardship management committee",

and, the Committee should have equal representation from the two Township Councils (CGH & NK), landowners from within the Site, traditional users directly connected to the site and MNR staff,

and, the co-stewardship management committee be given the responsibility of studying the KHSS Recommendations Report and the concerns raised in the feedback on the report as "urged" by the Honorable Jerry Ouellette in his letter of Sept. 23, 2002,

and, the co-stewardship management committee hold public meetings and provide open forums for dialogue and discussion, before making final recommendations to the Minister of Natural Resources re the Land Use designation, legislation, finances and management.
 
 

Sincerely,
 
 

Greg Herring                                                                            Doug Driscoll
Co-Chair ? NORKLA                                                              Co-Chair ? NORKLA

Honourable Jerry Ouellette,
 October 30,2002
 Minister of Natural Resources,
 6'th Floor, Room 6630, Whitney Block,
99 Wellesley Street West,
 Toronto ,Ontario
 M7A 1E3

Re: Kawartha Highlands Signature Site -- EBR#PBOOE3003

Dear Mr. Ouellette:

Thank you for this opportunity to vent our frustrations with the procedings to date in regards to the KHSS.  We have been property
owners in this area since the 1940's.  In fact our eldest member has been visiting  Big Cedar Lake since the 1920's. With these facts in mind , we are certain that you can understand our range of emotions right from the beginning of the time when we first discovered the plan to convert the area into a "park" ,"conservation area" and/or whatever the 'committee" decided the fate to be ..   Local Stakeholders???   As far as we are aware , none of the committee members are property owners ?????  Yet they are to decide the future use of the area????
 After reading the documents presented so far from the LSCand listening to many discussions on the subject , we will state our
original thoughts on this subject..
Protect the area from who ?, what  ? why ?.  After 50 orso years of ownership , we can still sit on our dock and see and hear the Osprey in
it's nest ,  we can still see the Beaver swimming across the lake , we can still see and hear the Humming Birds, the Foxes , the Deer  ,
etc.  In fact there is more wildlife now than there was 30 years ago.  The local cottagers have made certain that  Septic  systems have been upgraded, that local cottage  roads are maintained ,  that shorelines have been tended to , etc.   So from who are we protecting this area ??
 As far as local Lumber Industry and /or Mining Industry is concerned , the  existing regulations and contracts  have controlled growth
and culling extremely well . enforcement of these regulations should ensure the same controls in the future .  If we [you and us] want no
future changes to this situation -- do not issue any new contracts.   So , from what are we protecting this area ??  From what we can understand,  many other "Parks" are now being closed and/or not being staffed because of a lack of funding.  So, why
are we proceding??
 On several occasions  over the past year , we have been assured that certain protections were , or would be in place as far as our property is concerned. This is now been shown to not be the case.  Have the LSC overstated the position ??   Have they assumed certain things would happen that have not ?? How would we know the answer ??  To date they have not been forthwith towards the local property owners.
We request  that you take some time to listen to the local property owners [ those people with a vested  interest in  the area ]before any final decisions are made. Once again , thank you for this opportunity to express our opinions.
 If we can be of any assistance to you in this or any other matter , please contact us at your  convenience.

Yours truly,
Donna & Jim McDowall             12 Gaslight Cres.,
Scarborough , Ont M1C3S8
Doreen & Bill Lewis                    416-282-1249   or
416 -757-8851

October 31, 2002
 

Honourable Jerry Ouellette
MPP Oshawa
Ministry of Natural Resources

Dear Mr. Ouellette:

Re:  Buffer Zone ? Northeast Corner of Catchacoma Lake  EBR#PB00E3003

We are owners of property located on the northeast corner of Catchacoma Lake.  We would like to make a final plea for consideration of our position on several items concerning the KHSS Recommendations Report dated November 2001.

Item 1 ? Biased Representation by the Catchacoma Cottagers Association
We are very frustrated with the biased opinions presented by the Catchacoma Cottagers Association with respect to the buffer zone issue.  The purpose of the "information session" held on October 12, 2002 was to allow all affected parties the opportunity to express their views and concerns regarding the KHSS recommendations that do not allow for a buffer zone on the northeast corner of Catchacoma Lake.  Unfortunately, as many of us anticipated, those with anti-buffer zone views dominated the discussion and those of us who are pro-buffer zone were not afforded the opportunity to present our case in an appropriate manner.

We would like you to strongly consider our comments when reviewing any submissions from the Catchacoma Cottagers Association. Furthermore, we would like to express our belief that all interests would be better protected if the boundary of the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site adjacent to the northeast quadrant of Catchacoma Lake be returned to its original location and thus a "buffer zone" be permitted.

Item 2 ? Trail Access Preservation
The KHSS Recommendations Report promises to allow for continued access to private property.  However, with respect to trail access, only OFSC trails are referenced.  We want a guarantee that the Whitesands trail, developed through approved land use permits, be specifically included as a "grandfathered" trail to permit continued ATV and snowmobile access to private properties along the trail.  To not guarantee use of this trail would be a grave injustice to those of us who have worked hard to maintain the trail while preserving the environment surrounding it.  Not only does this trail provide off-season access, but it also provides passage for hydro and phone line repair, as well as safe access from cottages when the lakes become  unsafe due to deteriorating ice conditions.

Item 3 ? Trail Access Management
The KHSS Recommendations Report states that "Establishment of the protected area will not result in the imposition of fees to access private property."  The previous statement is followed by "With respect to the use of the protected area for recreational purposes, private property owners and their guests will be subject to the same rules and fees as any member of the public."  It appears to me that there is opportunity for conflict between these two "assurances".  With pressing government issues such as education and health care, how will the government implement a cost effective system to allow us "free" access to our cottage while preventing "free" use for recreational purposes?

Item 4 ? Co-stewardship
We ask that a co-stewardship management approach be adopted to manage the existing trails from Highway 507 to Bottle Lake with representation from local stakeholders who actively use these trails.

We appreciate this opportunity for input and request a response regarding our submission.

Thank you for your serious attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
 

Warren Terpstra & Joan Wilson
Catchacoma Lake
 

Cc:  via e-mail
        Premier Ernie Eves
        Chris Hodgson, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
        Gary Stewart, MPP, Peterborough