return to park index
 

The following is in four parts and is for your information. It is is a direct copy of a word document. I/editor do not belong to this organization.
1) Executive Overview,
2) Vision Statement:
3) Management Plan
4) "HERITAGE PROTECTION AREA"   A RECOMMENDATION FOR A NEW LAND USE DESIGNATION
 

More recent info  updates are attached below
Dec 12 2002 update
Jan 24 2003 letter to all members


STAKEHOLDER GROUPS OF THE KAWARTHA HIGHLANDS
Box 284 Apsley Ont. KOL 1A0 705-656-1339 www.sgkh.org

140,000+ Stakeholders Strong!

Executive Overview:
Kawartha Highlands Signature Site
October 9, 2002
 

BACKGROUND

The Stakeholder Groups of the Kawartha Highlands (SGKH) is an umbrella group representing and providing a unified voice to the major local stakeholder groups with direct ties to, and concern for, the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site (KHSS). Through its member groups the SGKH currently represents over 142,000 stakeholders. For more information on the SGKH please see our Vision Statement and web site.

On October 7, 2002 The Stakeholder Groups of the Kawartha Highlands (SGKH) unanimously approved a Vision Statement, Management Plan and recommendation for a new Land Use Designation called the Heritage Protection Area. This information package includes those documents, this Executive Overview and (with thanks) an Interim Report based on a survey of Canoer/Campers at the Long Lake Access Point this summer.

This information package is the result of an open dialogue between over 20 diverse groups of stakeholders and reflects the perspective gained with literally thousands of person years of experience in the KHSS. We are also pleased to provide the latest hard-data of grassroots canoer/campers opinions and experiences in the KHSS between July and October of this year.

MAJOR POINTS

From the 1850’s Kawartha Highlands Signature Site (KHSS) has sustained the traditional heritage outdoor activities of hunting, angling and trapping. Since then a wide variety of additional activities from hiking to fly-ins, from cottage life to canoe camping, from snowshoeing to snowmobiling have also taken place. Such a broad range of activities is not consistent with a provincial park designation. (See Vision Statement & Management Plan.)

Currently the site has approximately 2000 private properties generating roughly $2,000,000.00 per year in property taxes. The majority of these properties are on significantly populated lakes with a maze of roads and access points that are public, private, commercial and informal ? making it almost impossible to manage as a provincial park. (See Management Plan.)

The current level and diversity of activities are generally taking place in harmony and at sustainable levels. The major exception to this is the current non-operating Kawartha Highlands Provincial Park. (See Canoer/Camper Survey & Management Plan.)

However the SGKH recognizes the desirability to protect the KHSS for future generation so they can experience and enjoy these same sustainable heritage and emerging activities. The SGKH also applauds the creation of the Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act and the Ontario’s Living Legacy initiative. (See Vision Statement & Management Plan.)

Unfortunately while the Ontario’s Living Legacy Local Stakeholder Committee’s Recommendations Report shows a valid attempt to wrestle with their mandate the results show that the mandated designations were too narrow to embrace the heritage, traditional and emerging uses that were identified for protection within the KHSS.

This dilemma is obvious from the fact that while recommending a provincial park designation only one of their four objectives (p 42 Kawartha Highlands Signature Site Recommendations Report) can be achieved without special legislation! For these and other reasons, previously identified in dozens of verbal and written submissions to the Ontario’s Living Legacy Local Stakeholder Committee over the past two years we strongly believe that a provincial park designation is not the best way to protect the heritage values and goals set out in Ontario’s Living Legacy and other MNR initiatives. In fact over 87% of canoer/campers surveyed do not support a provincial park designation. (See Vision Statement, Heritage Protection Recommendation Canoer/Camper Survey & Management Plan.)
 
 
 

Conclusions & Recommendations

On the other hand a combination of the SGKH Vision, Management Plan and new Heritage Protection Land Use Designation can address all of the issues identified with the KHSS and other similar sites throughout Ontario. It would also be consistent and even enhance many current MNR objectives and initiatives. (See Heritage Protection Recommendation & Management Plan.)

For example a new Heritage Protection land use designation would:

Promote wise use conservation,
Promote heritage values and activities as recognized in the Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act,
Be grounded in basic Conservation Reserve policies and the Public Lands Act,
Endorse Co-Stewardship and Private public Partnerships,
Protect private property rights,
Be low-key, cost effective, innovative in its approach and available for use throughout Ontario.

The combination of the SGKH vision of inclusive sustainable uses with co-stewardship, wise use conservation and official protection through a Heritage Protection Land Use Designation would fit the needs and rights of the KHSS to a tee.

While additional recommendations are contained in each of our documents the SGKH strongly recommends the creation of a Heritage Protection designation, through stakeholder consultation, to be used as a land management tool alongside the existing Land Use Designations and that the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site be designated as Ontario’s first Heritage Protection Area.

While this grassroots initiative is "conceived in Kawartha" it provides a "heritage and conservation opportunity for all Ontario".
 

STAKEHOLDER GROUPS OF THE KAWARTHA HIGHLANDS
Box 284 Apsley Ont. KOL 1A0 705-656-1339

Vision Statement:
Kawartha Highlands Signature Site
 

BACKGROUND

The Stakeholder Groups of the Kawartha Highlands (SGKH) is an umbrella group representing and providing a unified voice to the major local stakeholder groups with direct ties to, and concern for, the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site (KHSS).

We are responsible environmentalists, cottagers, campers, canoers, land owners, business people, anglers, snowmobilers, hunters, Crown Land Use Permit Holders, hikers, skiers, naturalists, berry pickers, trappers, forest managers, float plane pilots and concerned elected officials who have been sustainably enjoying the Kawartha Highlands for many decades.

The group was formed in December 2001 when long established local stakeholder and stewardship groups with deep roots in the KHSS realized that they shared the same concerns and held similar views and that these views and the recommendations of their predecessor, the Lands for Life Great Lakes St. Lawrence Round Table were not being reflected in the Draft Recommendations of the Ontario’s Living Legacy Local Stakeholder Committee.

Once formed the SGKH quickly identified the following goals:

1. Sustainable Environmental Protection of the KHSS;
2. Protection of the sustainable traditional and emerging uses within the KHSS;
3. Protection of private property rights within the KHSS; and
4. To provide a broad base of local stakeholder input on issues concerning the KHSS.
 

THE SITE

From the mid 1800’s Kawartha Highlands Signature Site (KHSS) has sustained a wide variety of traditional outdoor activities from hiking to hunting, from fishing to fly-ins, from cottage life to canoe camping, from trapping to bird watching, from snowshoeing to snowmobiling.

Currently the site has approximately 2000 private properties generating roughly $2,000,000.00 per year in property taxes. The majority of these properties are on significantly populated lakes with a maze of roads and access points that are public, private, commercial and informal ? making it almost impossible to manage as a provincial park.

By and large the local stakeholders have been the stewards and for the most part this has worked well. (Especially when compared to the adjacent Kawartha Highlands Provincial Park which has critical environmental challenges due to overuse and no funding or management.)

Current studies commissioned by the MNR show that the KHSS, with it’s surface bedrock and thin soil is already at or near it’s maximum capacity for wilderness camping and is unsuitable for car camping and other intrusive types of outdoor recreation.

While some sort of formal protection of the KHSS will be required to meet the increased pressure that is expected over time a high profile would assuredly do more harm than good.

We believe that the stewardship of the KHSS should continue to come from a grassroots level, be inclusive not exclusive and nurture partnerships between the various user groups and levels of government.
 
 
 

VISION

Our vision for the future of the Kawartha Highlands is one where the natural environment is nurtured and managed to ensure the continued sustainable uses by residents and visitors, and where tolerance and shared use are key.

We believe that more effective management and enforcement of traditional and emerging uses will be required to meet an expected increase in use over time.

We believe that a high profile designation with the resultant marketing, advertising and increased pressure will do more harm than good to this local environment.

We believe in the protection of, sustainable traditional uses, sustainable emerging uses and private property rights within the KHSS.

Our vision of the KHSS is one of long-term environmental protection combined with the protection of traditional uses and private property rights as managed by a strong local stakeholder/stewardship committee in partnership with the MNR, local municipalities and local businesses.
 
 
 


STAKEHOLDER GROUPS OF THE KAWARTHA HIGHLANDS
BOX 284 APSLEY ONT. KOL1AO 656-1339

MANAGEMENT PLAN:
THE KAWARTHA HIGHLANDS SIGNATURE SITE

Note to the Reader:

The following Management Plan was passed unanimously at the October 8, 2002 meeting of the Stakeholder Groups of the Kawartha Highlands (SGKH). The SGKH, through its member/groups currently represents over 142,000 local stakeholders.

INTRODUCTION

The majority of people coming to the Kawartha Highlands have done so because it is offers very "low-key" regulation beyond the laws that pertain to Crown Land. They enjoy the freedom to come and go without checking through gates and making reservations.

We believe that this tradition should be retained as much as possible. That said the most desirable approach would be one that provides a balance of long term protection with minimum restrictions, in the beginning, that are reviewed by a co-stewardship management committee charged with the responsibility to address any emerging needs

We also believe that the vision/goal of the original Burleigh/Anstruther stakeholders was realistic and sound - to continue enforcing the present rules and regulations for the majority of traditional uses and increase protection only where specific problems were identified.

The Burleigh/Anstruther stakeholders also saw the importance of stewardship by local government, the MNR and local stakeholders as well as the continued Township ownership and control of the shoreline road allowance adjacent to Crown Land as a priority.

This plan attempts to preserve as much of the original spirit of the area as possible while adopting basic standards and regulations to ensure environmental protection.

A NEW DESIGNATION ENSHRINED IN LEGISLATION

After years of consideration and open debate amongst the many stakeholders and stakeholder groups the SGKH recommends that the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site (KHSS) become the model for a new type of land use designation.

The new designation would ensure sustainable protection for traditional heritage values and activities and the environment through local stewardship and wise use conservation principles.

We envision this new designation dovetailing with the recently passed Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act 2002 in that it guarantees the continuation of hunting and angling with an emphasis on enhanced environmental protection.

The new designation would promote this diversity in a low-key "as necessary" approach to self-promotion and regulation.

The SGKH has published an introductory document examining this subject in  "Heritage Protection Area"
A Recommendation for a New Land Use Designation.

Such an innovative yet practical and cost effective approach is supported in the MNR 2001-2002 business plan that states,

"The Ministry will consult on new approaches to future land use and natural resource planning on crown land"
 
 

SUSTAINABILITY

For this or any plan to be successful it must ensure that it is sustainable and that the fundamental vision that it supports is also sustainable.

The key to sustainability is the regulation of usage appropriate to the environment and the appropriate funding to support that usage.

Currently the prime area within the KHSS to experience serious over use is the non-operating Kawartha Highlands Provincial Park. This is a simple case of over exposure combined with under funding.

On the other hand the Long Lake canoe loop with a greater landmass, more campsites and portages is, according to a 2002 Canoe Camper Survey, in good shape. Plus 87.5% of the approximately 100 canoe campers who completed a survey indicated that they were happy with the status quo and DO NOT endorse or believe a provincial park designation is required or beneficial.

USER EXPECTATIONS

Given the low recreational capacity relative to its size it is important that the Kawartha Highlands is NOT over advertised. It is also important that the area is NOT misrepresented as a highly developed camper playground.

The Kawartha Highlands is not a wilderness. From many locations in the area campers can see the lights of Peterborough and hear cars on the highway.

Users of the area MUST understand that they are NOT coming to an Operating Provincial Park nor are they coming to a vast northern wilderness.

Protection through the recommended Heritage Protection Area land use designation would resolve this problem.

NAME

Given that the area is NOT suitable as a park or conservation reserve neither term should be used in the name. Terms such as "Heritage" and "Protected" are appropriate.

An Act might be called the "Heritage Protection Act" or "Signature Site Act". The resulting land use designation might be called a "Heritage Protection Area" or "Signature Site Area".

ADDRESSING THE PROBLEMS

There are two major problem areas that need to be addressed: camping and ATV/off-road vehicle use. We address these two problem areas and some related issues.

CAMPING

The earliest European use of the area was in the 1850s, when hunters and trappers entered the area in rowboats and canoes for commercial purposes. The next important activity was logging.

One hundred years later, in the 1960s the M.N.R. opened up recreational canoe loop camping, advertised it, increased canoe traffic and then was forced to walk away from maintaining it due to budget restrictions in the late 1970’s.

The major problems that resulted include accumulation of garbage, over camping on long weekends, camping on non-designated sites and lack of facilities i.e.: privies and fire pits. An additional problem on lakes with boat launching facilities is that easy access encourages large group motorboat camping and party campers.

It must be noted that the area most adversely affected is the existing Kawartha Highlands Provincial Park. The east side of the KHSS with access via Long Lake is actually in good shape as per a summer 2002 survey of canoe and boat campers. The Junior Stewardship Rangers also reported this summer that campsites are generally in good condition on Crab
Lake.

There are several models that have been successfully implemented: the partnership between M.N.R. and some Townships; privatization, a partnership among M.N.R., associations and private business as developed at Long Lake access point; and the Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec low level controlled use by self-registration.

REGISTRATION AND PARKING

Campsite registration will help to ensure that camping only takes place on designated sites.

A low cost, low maintenance method of administrating this is by installing self-registration kiosks. This is a method that is used in Alberta, Quebec and British Columbia with good success. It is especially suited to access points where there is no business partner to provide administration.

In this case of self-registration, one copy of the registration form with payment is dropped in a locked box, one copy is placed on the dash of car and the camper carries one copy.  The charge is by day/week including parking and camping.

Parking lots would be developed to accommodate the approximate number of access campers.

Signage would indicate the areas and number of sites that can best be reached from this access point. It would indicate that sites are used on a "first come first served" basis, camping is only allowed on designated sites, and that if the parking lot is full the campsites will be full and offer alternative sites.

Where practical commercial partnerships can be utilized for registration (an example would be the Long Lake Access Point). For significant access points that are not in a position to have commercial partnerships for example Wolf or Anstruther Lakes, a seasonal control officer might be assigned to checking these access points on heavy use long weekends. The previous MNR policy of tendering out the maintenance of access points may be an appropriate method of addressing the needs of access points that do not have a commercial partnership.

Separate parking areas must be guaranteed for water access cottagers.

NAVIGATION
In order to reinforce the concept of designated campsites and aid campers in finding their site large display maps would be placed at each access point.

Access point maps would clearly indicate the lakes, portages and designated campsites. Other information such as the length of each portage and approximate time needed to reach interior lakes from the access point could also be included.

Smaller individual lake maps would be placed at the portage entrance to all lakes. These maps would also indicate the designated numbered campsites.

Access points would also be clearly posted with Regulations and applicable fines. For example:
* No garbage left on campsites.
* No camping in non-designated areas.
* Registration must be displayed on car dash and campsite.
* No tree cutting
* No parking outside the designated parking area.

List of local private campgrounds should also be posted to redirect overflow.

GARBAGE
A policy of "No Trace" camping should be strictly enforced. Garbage receptacles could be placed at access points where maintenance is provided. For access points that do not have regular maintenance service, campers would be required to take garbage home or the registration form could be used for access to the Township waste site or transfer station.

HUMAN WASTE
The disposal of human waste is of serious concern given the scant soil cover in many campsites. Pit privies must be an appropriate distance from both the lake and ground water.

A campsite must be decommissioned if a proper site for a pit privy cannot be found. The key factor in establishing campsites must be sufficient soil depth a safe distance from the lake in order to sustain a privy and minimize leaching.

It is inappropriate that there are no enforceable regulations relating to pit privies ? especially in areas such as the KHSS where busy campsites can experience the same or greater pressure than a Recreational Camp or cottage. We recommend (at least) the development of standards that could be used within the KHSS.

CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT

Seasonal control/by-law officers backed by M.N.R. officers would carry out control and Enforcement.

An MNR Conservation Officer should be assigned the KHSS as his or her major responsibility. Two seasonal assistant Conservation Officers should be hired (one for the east side and one for the west side) to work with the full time officer for the peak period of May 1st to Oct. 31st. Further support could be drawn from the Youth Employment Programs as outlined in the MNR 2001-2002 business plan. For example Ontario Rangers, Stewardship Rangers and Co-op and Internship programs would fit well with the KHSS requirements.

Ideally a group of Junior Stewardship Rangers dedicated to the Kawartha Highlands area would be responsible to assist with the seasonal clean-up of campsites, access points and portages, educating the public, etc.

The finances would flow through the MNR to be administered by the co-stewardship management committee.  The potential cost would be significantly less than an organized Provincial Park. Therefore this plan would be much more sustainable in the future.

While cottagers should not be placed in the role of enforcement they are the current stewards and often on the front line when fires occur or campers are lost or injured. Local cottage associations could encourage "Cottage Watch" programs that would continue to endorse this role.

ATVS

ATVs should include Argos, trikes, dune buggies, bombardiers, 4x4s, and all other forms of off-road vehicles.

Presently the use of these vehicles does not appear to be a problem on the east side of the KHSS where they are used by cottagers and, hunters, anglers and trappers as a means of transportation to and from private/leased property and watches.

The west side of the KHSS has some concern with some transient off-trail users and recent recreational rallies. These rallies must be regulated by permit and approved by the Co-stewardship management committee, who will assess the environmental impact.

These vehicles should continue to be allowed for transportation for recreation camps, cottages, anglers and trap-line management etc. Other uses should be monitored and restricted to existing trails. Further controls could include seasonal restrictions, especially the early spring indicated by trail signage similar to fire burning conditions, and permits (free to property owners and those taking part in permitted heritage activities as previously mentioned.

The co-stewardship management committee would be responsible for monitoring this and all other activities and provide enforcement where necessary.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
WATERSHED QUALITY

A formal program should be established that would include water testing, septic surveys and educational programs addressing stewardship, water quality etc.

These programs should be undertaken in cooperation with all stakeholders, especially local cottage associations who are often already involved in these activities.
 

FOREST MANAGEMENT

The "low impact" management of the forest for the protection of the canopy, control of disease, fire prevention and wildlife management should be encouraged through the Co-Stewardship Management Committee. This was strongly supported by the Burleigh Anstruther Chandos Stakeholders Committee.

To this end there should be a policy of allowing selective logging in harvest areas identified by the M.N.R. using winter roads.

Clear cutting is NOT allowed.

USAGE GUIDELINES

The Kawartha Highlands has long support a wide variety of activities including: camping, cottaging, fishing, hunting, trapping, canoeing, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing etc.

It is important that existing and new activities do not harm the environment and that they do not threaten the sustainability of the area.

ADMINISTRATION:
CO-STEWARDSHIP MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

The Kawartha Highlands Co-Stewardship Management Committee would provide on going management and make recommendations where appropriate.

The Kawartha Highlands Co-Stewardship Management Committee should have equal representation from the two Township Councils, landowners from within the Site, traditional users directly connected to the site and MNR staff with equal decision-making powers with the MNR as recommended in the KHSS LSC Recommendations Report.

FINANCE

Sufficient funding must be provided to develop the initial infrastructure. This might come from the "Super Build" fund. Legislation should guarantee that moneys generated through fees are reinvested in the KHSS.

The long-term goal should be to strive to make it as self-supporting as possible through fees, grants, donations, and partnerships in order to ensure its long-term sustainability.  A low cost management control system is far more viable to sustain than an expensive full-fledged provincial park model.

Partnerships could include all levels of government, local business and tourist operators, agencies, high schools, colleges, universities and stewardship organizations similar to the Bancroft Stewardship Council.

KAWARTHA HIGHLANDS PROVINCIAL PARK

The present Kawartha Highlands Provincial Park has a special set of problems that should be addressed immediately.

Consideration should be given to implementing a Fully Operational Provincial Park, which would include:

* Separate controlled road for park access with appropriate parking.
* Complete infrastructure including proper facilities, staff, designated camping sites and maintenance.
* A corridor completely surrounding the park and all private property, if requested by local municipality and property owners.  The corridor may be best outside the park boundaries jointly controlled by the municipality, township and M.N.R. with locally developed bylaws.

If the above cannot be implemented in the very near future then the present non-operating park should be decommissioned and incorporated into the KHSS under the Heritage Protection land use designation. Sufficient funds to address the immediate needs of the current park should accompany its incorporation into the KHSS.
 
 
 
 



STAKEHOLDER GROUPS OF THE KAWARTHA HIGHLANDS
Box 284 Apsley Ont. KOL 1A0 705-656-1339

"HERITAGE PROTECTION AREA"
A RECOMMENDATION FOR A NEW LAND USE DESIGNATION

BACKGROUND

While the two Land Use Designations (LUD) with the broadest mandate "Provincial Park" and "Conservation Reserve" have often served the public well in the past and will continue to play an important role in the future a review of current events and an analysis of the current goals and opinions of both the government and public clearly indicate that a new LUD is also required.

For example recent Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) initiatives demonstrate a willingness to embrace new directions where prudent, cost effective and consistent with their role as the "lead conservation and resource management agency in the province". 1

Some of these initiatives include:

* Ontario’s Living Legacy;
* The Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act;
* Seeking "new approaches to future land use and natural resource planning on Crown land"; 2
* "…actively pursue partnerships with other organizations to help plan, fund and manage Crown land recreation." 3

Key components in each of these initiatives include the:

* Wise management and conservation of natural and heritage resources;
* Protection of the environment, natural and heritage resources for generations to come;
* "Enhancing of angling, hunting and other Crown land recreation"; 4

While all of these initiatives are commendable and appear consistent from a top down level, at the grassroots they can appear inconsistent and often lead to conflict.

For example the MNR has stipulated that angling and hunting will be permitted in all new areas established under the Ontario’s Living Legacy. 5 Yet some people have a preconceived notion of a park that does not include hunting. The problem is the term "park". Areas can be set aside for enhanced, wise use conservation and still sustain angling, hunting and trapping ? they just shouldn’t be called a "park".

In a recent conversation about the possible designation of the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site between a local stakeholder and a member of the Ontario’s Living Legacy Local Stakeholder Committee  (OLLLSC) the stakeholder said, "I think that if this becomes a provincial park I’ll spend the rest of my life fighting for my right to hunt and trap"  The member of the OLLLSC replied, "You are probably right." 6

This simple and honest conversation epitomizes the inherent diversity of viewpoints that surround a provincial park and why a "one size fits all" designation just won’t work anymore.

A further examination of the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site with its broad range of traditional uses and narrow choice of LUDs clearly demonstrates the growing conflicts. Even before a final decision is announced radical environmental groups, counting on a provincial park designation, are lining up to challenge the publics right to; hunt, trap and snowmobile in the "park".

The issues the OLLLSC had to deal with when deciding on a LUD are described in their Recommendations Report pages 41 to 43.

In the end the OLLLSC stated that in choosing an LUD,

"current policies and zoning capabilities (provincial park VS conservation reserve) did not sway us definitely in one direction" 7

and,

"the recommended protection designation is provided based on our other recommendations (form following function)" 8

However form did not follow function. Despite recommending a provincial park only one of the four bullet points in the OLLLSC’s LUD recommendation falls within the scope of a provincial park designation, the other three will all require special legislation! 9

Ironically the OLLLSC also states that another reason for choosing a provincial park LUD was,

 "Most people know what a park is, and many emotions are usually stirred." 10

While the word park pulls at the heart-strings of some, others picture a car camping grounds with lots of facilities, others picture a vast wilderness and still others an organized playground. The fact is that a park means different things to different people, but for city folk it seldom means an area with the enshrined right to take part in angling, hunting and trapping ? even if these are sustainable heritage activities that have taken place for well over a hundred years ? as they have in the KHSS.
 

BASIC CONCEPTS OF A HERITAGE PROTECTION AREA LUD

This document is intended to introduce the basic concept of a "Heritage Protection Area" not be the actual policies. That said we will address the basic questions of; WHO is it for, WHAT is it, WHERE & WHEN is it appropriate and WHY bother.

WHO is it for? ? All Ontarians. Rather than be site-specific legislation it is proposed to be legislation for use through out Ontario.

WHAT is it for? ? It is proposed to provide a LUD that is better suited to promote a diverse group of uses while supporting underlying wise use conservation principles, enhancing opportunities for heritage activities and protecting private property rights.

A Heritage Protection Area LUD would be based generally on existing Conservation Reserve policies including the Statements of Conservation, Resource Management Plans and regulation under the Public Lands Act. The range of permitted uses would be similar but with an increased focus on promoting heritage activities and private property rights including right of access.

A review of permitted uses under a Conservation Reserve would be required in the development of permitted uses for a Heritage Protection Area LUD. For example while commercial timber harvesting may not be permitted a Co-Stewardship Team should be empowered to authorize "low impact" management of the forest for the protection of the canopy, control of disease, fire prevention and wildlife management. Regulated trapping would also be seen as a generally permitted activity.

Like a Conservation Reserve a Heritage Protection Area LUD would take a "low key" approach to management, infrastructure and marketing providing only what was necessary.

Fundamental to a Heritage Protection Area LUD would be the availability of a group or groups that would be willing and able to act as Co-Stewards along with the MNR. In this way a Heritage Protection LUD would encourage Private Public Partnerships.

WHERE & WHEN is it appropriate? ?  It would be clear that areas protected under a Heritage Protection Area LUD would serve a wide range of sustainable activities including angling and hunting and, in some cases, this would make it a more suitable choice than a provincial park.

A Heritage Protection Area LUD would be developed and applied provincially to satisfy the functional requirements of areas like the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site that are intended to combine wise use conservation with hunting, angling and other sustainable heritage activities.

A Heritage Protection LUD might also be chosen when the high profile and heavy footprint of a provincial park is seen as incompatible with a site’s conservation, protection and heritage activity objectives.

WHY bother? ? The proposed Heritage Protection LUD would provide a new tool to protect an area through traditional forms of wise use conservation and environmental protection. It would protect and promote the tenants of the "Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act" and other heritage activities. It would provide protection of private property rights.  It would provide clarity as to the types of permitted uses and the ways it differs from a provincial park.
 
 
 
 

HOW MUCH will it cost? ? A Heritage Protection LUD is proposed to be more cost effective than previous models. It would have a large private component within each site’s Co-Stewardship Team. Revenues generated within the site would remain in the site.

While a modest (as compared to a provincial park) capital budget should be provided by the MNR (perhaps through Super Build) a Heritage Protection area should generally be financially self-sustaining on an operational basis after three years.

Ongoing MNR commitment to areas with a Heritage Protection LUD might include, depending on the size of the area; one Conservation Officer or a "shared" Conservation Officer, one or more seasonal employees as appropriate and one Ontario Stewardship Ranger Team or a "shared" Ontario Stewardship Ranger Team.

A Heritage Protection LUD is proposed to be innovative and flexible enough to put innovation into practice.
 

CONCLUSIONS

The concept of a Heritage Protection LUD:

* Embraces recent MNR initiatives;
* Allows for enhanced protection;
* Promotes heritage activities;
* Promotes Co-Stewardship and PPPs;
* Protects private property rights and right of access;
* Is cost effective and
* Sets clear user expectations in regard to permitted activities.
 

RECOMMENDATIONS

We strongly recommend the creation of a Heritage Protection designation, through stakeholder consultation, to be used as a land management tool alongside the existing Land Use Designations.

We strongly recommend that the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site be designated as Ontario’s first Heritage Protection Area so that form can truly follow function.
 

FOOTNOTES

1. Page 2, Ministry Vision, MNR Business Plan 2001-2002
2. Page 7, Key Commitments & Strategies 2001-2002, MNR Business Plan 2001-2002
3. Page 16, Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy, July 1999
4. Page 13, Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy, July 1999
5. Page 13, Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy, July 1999
6. The conversation was reported to the authors by North Kawartha Councilor Kim Dunford and refers to his conversation with a member of the  OLLLSC. (Mr. Dunford’s daughter is the 4th generation in her family to be a registered trapper in the KHSS.)
7. Page 41, Kawartha Highlands Signature Site Recommendations Report, November 2001
8. Executive Summary, Kawartha Highlands Signature Site Recommendations Report, November 2001
9. Page 42, Kawartha Highlands Signature Site Recommendations Report, November 2001
10. Page 42, Kawartha Highlands Signature Site Recommendations Report, November 2001



we do not have a date for this submission. The introductory email date is 12 Dec. 2002 and is copied below with reduntant sections removed.

To All Members of the SGKH
I am pleased to let you know that Minister of Natural Resources Jerry Ouellette introduced new legislation for the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site today.
John Bell, Andy Houser, Peter Chown and I were able to meet with the Minister and then attend the House of Commons for the announcement of the Recreation Reserve Act 2002.
We expect to have a copy of the Act for distribution in the next day or so.
While the Act is a high level document and our reading of it was brief it appears to include virtually all of the key elements of our latest submissions. (ed note : copied below)...
It is clear that our group, and others like it, have made a significant impact on the direction that the Minister has taken. There are fundamental differences between the Act and the LSC Mandate such as a new land use designation - something we have sought from day one.
We need to review the Act in detail and provide a considered response to the Minister. We could exchange ideas via email and meet mid January to prepare a response. An email will follow regarding a date for the meeting.
Our first impressions of the Recreation Reserve Act are very positive. For more detail see the Press Release and EBR posting.
Cheers,

Rick Meridew
Co-Chair, SGKH



STAKEHOLDER GROUPS OF THE KAWARTHA HIGHLANDS
Box 284 Apsley Ont. KOL 1A0 705-656-1339

"HERITAGE PROTECTION AREA"
A RECOMMENDATION FOR A NEW LAND USE DESIGNATION

BACKGROUND

While the two Land Use Designations (LUD) with the broadest mandate "Provincial Park" and "Conservation Reserve" have often served the public well in the past and will continue to play an important role in the future a review of current events and an analysis of the current goals and opinions of both the government and public clearly indicate that a new LUD is also required.

For example recent Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) initiatives demonstrate a willingness to embrace new directions where prudent, cost effective and consistent with their role as the "lead conservation and resource management agency in the province". 1

Some of these initiatives include:
 


Key components in each of these initiatives include the:
 


While all of these initiatives are commendable and appear consistent from a top down level, at the grassroots they can appear inconsistent and often lead to conflict.

For example the MNR has stipulated that angling and hunting will be permitted in all new areas established under the Ontario’s Living Legacy. 5 Yet some people have a preconceived notion of a park that does not include hunting. The problem is the term "park". Areas can be set aside for enhanced, wise use conservation and still sustain angling, hunting and trapping ? they just shouldn’t be called a "park".

In a recent conversation about the possible designation of the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site between a local stakeholder and a member of the Ontario’s Living Legacy Local Stakeholder Committee  (OLLLSC) the stakeholder said, "I think that if this becomes a provincial park I’ll spend the rest of my life fighting for my right to hunt and trap"  The member of the OLLLSC replied, "You are probably right." 6

This simple and honest conversation epitomizes the inherent diversity of viewpoints that surround a provincial park and why a "one size fits all" designation just won’t work anymore.

A further examination of the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site with its broad range of traditional uses and narrow choice of LUDs clearly demonstrates the growing conflicts. Even before a final decision is announced radical environmental groups, counting on a provincial park designation, are lining up to challenge the publics right to; hunt, trap and snowmobile in the "park".

The issues the OLLLSC had to deal with when deciding on a LUD are described in their Recommendations Report pages 41 to 43.

In the end the OLLLSC stated that in choosing an LUD,

"current policies and zoning capabilities (provincial park VS conservation reserve) did not sway us definitely in one direction" 7

and,

"the recommended protection designation is provided based on our other recommendations (form following function)" 8

However form did not follow function. Despite recommending a provincial park only one of the four bullet points in the OLLLSC’s LUD recommendation falls within the scope of a provincial park designation, the other three will all require special legislation! 9

Ironically the OLLLSC also states that another reason for choosing a provincial park LUD was,

 "Most people know what a park is, and many emotions are usually stirred." 10

While the word park pulls at the heart-strings of some, others picture a car camping grounds with lots of facilities, others picture a vast wilderness and still others an organized playground. The fact is that a park means different things to different people, but for city folk it seldom means an area with the enshrined right to take part in angling, hunting and trapping ? even if these are sustainable heritage activities that have taken place for well over a hundred years ? as they have in the KHSS.
 

BASIC CONCEPTS OF A HERITAGE PROTECTION AREA LUD

This document is intended to introduce the basic concept of a "Heritage Protection Area" not be the actual policies. That said we will address the basic questions of; WHO is it for, WHAT is it, WHERE & WHEN is it appropriate and WHY bother.

WHO is it for? ? All Ontarians. Rather than be site-specific legislation it is proposed to be legislation for use through out Ontario.

WHAT is it for? ? It is proposed to provide a LUD that is better suited to promote a diverse group of uses while supporting underlying wise use conservation principles, enhancing opportunities for heritage activities and protecting private property rights.

A Heritage Protection Area LUD would be based generally on existing Conservation Reserve policies including the Statements of Conservation, Resource Management Plans and regulation under the Public Lands Act. The range of permitted uses would be similar but with an increased focus on promoting heritage activities and private property rights including right of access.

A review of permitted uses under a Conservation Reserve would be required in the development of permitted uses for a Heritage Protection Area LUD. For example while commercial timber harvesting may not be permitted a Co-Stewardship Team should be empowered to authorize "low impact" management of the forest for the protection of the canopy, control of disease, fire prevention and wildlife management. Regulated trapping would also be seen as a generally permitted activity.

Like a Conservation Reserve a Heritage Protection Area LUD would take a "low key" approach to management, infrastructure and marketing providing only what was necessary.

Fundamental to a Heritage Protection Area LUD would be the availability of a group or groups that would be willing and able to act as Co-Stewards along with the MNR. In this way a Heritage Protection LUD would encourage Private Public Partnerships.

WHERE & WHEN is it appropriate? ?  It would be clear that areas protected under a Heritage Protection Area LUD would serve a wide range of sustainable activities including angling and hunting and, in some cases, this would make it a more suitable choice than a provincial park.

A Heritage Protection Area LUD would be developed and applied provincially to satisfy the functional requirements of areas like the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site that are intended to combine wise use conservation with hunting, angling and other sustainable heritage activities.

A Heritage Protection LUD might also be chosen when the high profile and heavy footprint of a provincial park is seen as incompatible with a site’s conservation, protection and heritage activity objectives.

WHY bother? ? The proposed Heritage Protection LUD would provide a new tool to protect an area through traditional forms of wise use conservation and environmental protection. It would protect and promote the tenants of the "Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act" and other heritage activities. It would provide protection of private property rights.  It would provide clarity as to the types of permitted uses and the ways it differs from a provincial park.
 
 
 
 

HOW MUCH will it cost? ? A Heritage Protection LUD is proposed to be more cost effective than previous models. It would have a large private component within each site’s Co-Stewardship Team. Revenues generated within the site would remain in the site.

While a modest (as compared to a provincial park) capital budget should be provided by the MNR (perhaps through Super Build) a Heritage Protection area should generally be financially self-sustaining on an operational basis after three years.

Ongoing MNR commitment to areas with a Heritage Protection LUD might include, depending on the size of the area; one Conservation Officer or a "shared" Conservation Officer, one or more seasonal employees as appropriate and one Ontario Stewardship Ranger Team or a "shared" Ontario Stewardship Ranger Team.

A Heritage Protection LUD is proposed to be innovative and flexible enough to put innovation into practice.
 

CONCLUSIONS

The concept of a Heritage Protection LUD:

* Embraces recent MNR initiatives;
* Allows for enhanced protection;
* Promotes heritage activities;
* Promotes Co-Stewardship and PPPs;
* Protects private property rights and right of access;
* Is cost effective and
* Sets clear user expectations in regard to permitted activities.
 

RECOMMENDATIONS

We strongly recommend the creation of a Heritage Protection designation, through stakeholder consultation, to be used as a land management tool alongside the existing Land Use Designations.

We strongly recommend that the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site be designated as Ontario’s first Heritage Protection Area so that form can truly follow function.
 

FOOTNOTES

1. Page 2, Ministry Vision, MNR Business Plan 2001-2002
2. Page 7, Key Commitments & Strategies 2001-2002, MNR Business Plan 2001-2002
3. Page 16, Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy, July 1999
4. Page 13, Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy, July 1999
5. Page 13, Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy, July 1999
6. The conversation was reported to the authors by North Kawartha Councilor Kim Dunford and refers to his conversation with a member of the  OLLLSC. (Mr. Dunford’s daughter is the 4th generation in her family to be a registered trapper in the KHSS.)
7. Page 41, Kawartha Highlands Signature Site Recommendations Report, November 2001
8. Executive Summary, Kawartha Highlands Signature Site Recommendations Report, November 2001
9. Page 42, Kawartha Highlands Signature Site Recommendations Report, November 2001
10. Page 42, Kawartha Highlands Signature Site Recommendations Report, November 2001



Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:00:48 -0500
Subject: Last Chance

To All Members,

I wanted to provide a very fast update on the SGKH meeting with MNR representatives Doug Unsworth (Acting District Manager) and Dan Marinich(who wrote the newlegislation). Peter Chown, Arnie Brown, Kim Dunford and I were there.

Dan Marinich went through the entire act section by section then answered all questions. He also gave us the same written information as has been provided to the LSC. (I'll circulate this when I get it into digital format.)

In short the act is almost exactly what we have been lobbying for. The main point is that we will still mostly fall under the Public Lands Act (read status quo) with some additional protection for recreational activities and private property rights.

The MNR does expect to add more emphasis to conservation (there is no reference at all now) and potentially more enforcement.

From my point of view this is even better than a conservation reserve, let alone a park.

I handed in about 25 written responses to Dan Marinich at the meeting and have attached a copy of our LLCA response in the body of this email. The camper survey referred to has previously been submitted but may also be downloaded from www.sgkh.org.

As of Tuesday there were about 2,000 submissions made and it was running about 50/50, for and against.

The Farquhar family has contributed about 150 letters in support of the recreation reserve and a challenge has been made.

This is your last chance to respond to the EBR posting.

See you at the lake,

Rick