return to park index page

WSL page  - missiles or missals as you will  - by date
Please note these documents are a direct copy over and some characters may change in translation or display depending on your program or operating system.

*Dec 4-6  Property Rights and exchange of 3 letters
*Dec 16 KHSS Official Announcement
*Dec 21  Recent annoucement of KHSS Designation
*Jan 8  To-nights (SGKH)Meeting - Thoughts and comments from CCA
*Jan 18 2003  several sites that you should be aware
*Jan 25 2003  Rick:  (SGKH) I wanted you to know, as well as other members of the SGKH, the outcome of our decision in responding to Bill 239.
*Feb 2 2003  CCA has been asked to forward this communication for your information.  - Mike_Colle-MPP web site  - kill bill 239
* Feb 14 letter WSL to Jim Whelan President  Anstruther Lake Cottagers’ Assn. Inc. re   E-mail Communication to ALCA Members February 3 2003 this is a very aggressive letter demanding an apology and shutting down this web site.  Jim's original letter is attached as wsl sent it. This explains the ALCA position. We received this Mar 8th. It is a remarkably aggressive letter with a very intersting interpretation of the events and results/conclusions at the CCA 2002 annual general meetings.
*March 3 2003 Rick Aube to WSL re Association Clarification - (Beaver-Cavendish-Bottle-McGinniss)  with 4 attachments , one of which is already on this site. This series is in response to the Dec 4-6 WSL  email  It has attachments #1  a WSL email that already exists on this page,   # 2 this is actually 2 letters to Nancy Wilson and,   # 3 this is BCBM assocation position paper to minister MNR OCT 2002,    and #4 Aug 2002 14 letter to same.
*March 8 2003       A Public Forum on the fate of Ontario's Parks  - FOCA position???
We understand an email went out about mid May re next association election  - we did not receive a copy. We understand there are no board members to stand for re-election!!
Wed, 18 Jun 2003   Hi:  A group of us attended the session in Parliament yesterday.  This is known as Bill 100.

- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis & Wendy Lyttle" <>
To: "McConnachies" <>
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: Property Rights

Hi:  I haven't read Faulner's message but be known that the map issue he sent recently was geared again to buffer zone issues and our lake voted that this buffer zone issue is not supported by CCA - Catchacoma Cottagers'Association.
It is a suggestion that before info from Faulkner be disseminated, verification of same be done.  If you want specifics...65 members of our association know what misinformation is regarding Faulkner.
Regards Wendy-----

From: "McConnachies" <>
To: "Dennis & Wendy Lyttle" <>
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: Property Rights

Hello Wendy:

For your information, I have heard that not all that you have been disseminating is completely accurate, and that isn't coming from Gary.  I sense that there is more behind this "buffer zone" issue, that you're not passing on.
In any event, I am sending out what is sent to me.  It is up to the receiver to glean what they perceive as accurate.  With all the information that has been circulated over the many months, it is expected that there will be inaccuracies and that's been clearly proven by the inaccuracies and inconsistencies of the information that has been passed on by the LSC.
There isn't anyone of us that would have the knowledge of all the localities involved. It is only through the expertise and experiences of the local property owners that we can all become better informed.
It is a suggestion, from me that you continue to send out what you consider to be accurate and permit other people to challenge the information that you are passing on.  You always have the opportunity for rebuttal.

Laurel McConnachie


From: "Dennis & Wendy Lyttle" <>
To: "McConnachies" <>
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: Property Rights

HI:  Not sure what you have heard but CCA do not pass out any info that has not already been verified from official sources. I agree with what you are saying.  Perhaps you've been misled yourself.  There is no rebuttal of any kind here.  I received you last communication, had it verified and responded.
Mr. Faulkner wants a road. Plan and simple.  Cottagers on our lake disagree and that was supported through a very structured meeting. Now whatever Mr.Faulkner sends out will be deemed suspect.  Over 65 people at our AGM heard the facts from MRN and Ontario Parks.  Their decision was made on facts. CCA has never put forward false info.  Mr Faulkner has and that is fact. Verification is simple, just ask the officials. Buffer Zone concept will verify within the proposed designated area. We understand what protection means verses growth and our members have spoken for the NE quadrant of Lake Catchacoma.
CCA still support the efforts of SGKH as well however, respect must be given to Lake specific areas.  We will defend the area we represent the way... representation from the Bottle Lake association were present at our AGM and agree with the decision our members made.
I'm not certainly trying to debate anything.  What the executive of CCA has maintained all along, we won't communicate anything to anyone unless verification is done first.  I simply gave you a heads -up. Not all is what it seems.
Mr. Faulkner wants a road. He'll do anything he can to achieve his agenda.   CCA with the support of our members just is doing what is asked of us. Thanks for the feedback and have a great holiday season.

Ed Note: CCA  and WSL have never provided "specifics" dispite being asked to do so. There is not a road application before MNR and never has been by GF.

Reply-To: "Catchacoma Cottagers' Association" <>

Subject: kHSS Official Announcement
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 09:34:24 -0500

Just passing along what Minister Oulette annouced on Friday re the KHSS designation.  It is neither a Park or Conservation Area.  KHSS has been designated a "Recreation Reserve".  The work that the Local Stakeholders Committe did for the pass three years has been ignored.

The Stakeholders Group of the Kawartha Highlands, of which CCA is a member supports this "Recreation Reserve". 
There is however a need to digest all the details of this annoucement and impact thereof which the SGKH will do. I'm sure the LSC and their supporters will go full out to reject this.  I'm sure that other groups will put forth their comments whether pro and con.  More details will follow.

Seasons Greetings to all.

Ed note the attachments are available on this site. bill 239

Catchacoma Cottagers' Association" <>

Subject: Recent annoucement of KHSS Designation
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 13:06:06 -0500

While we all are enjoying the holiday season, I feel it is my responsibility to give you all as much information as possible on the results of the new designation "Recreation Reserve" along with backup info.  I'll be attending the meeting of Jan 8th in Peterboro of the Stakeholders Group of the Kawartha Highlands.  Your feedback is important as to where CCA should be positioned. I realize that lots of our members are away but at least I"m demonstrating the communication link that was promised to you all.
 The attached documents are info on a) The SGKH recommendations to MNR re "Heritage-Protection". b) Local Stakeholders Committee Press Release  c) SGKH Co-chair messages to all members d) copy of the Bill 239. Everyone has 45 days to respond with their comments.  The co-chair has asked all members to submit questions before the meeting on Jan 8th.
 There is much activity from the pro groups to the recommendation and the anti-groups to the recommendation of "Recreation Reserve".
 There are a lot of unanswered questions and our CCA e-mail site has been active with members asking all kinds of questions.  We'll try to keep all informed.
 There is no time to mail out all this info so for those members who have given us their e-mail addresses we are doing our best to keep you informed.  Feedback is appreciated before Jan 7th.

Thank you
Wendy Lyttle

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.
We can quickly share a few highlights and provide a link to the press release at the bottom of this email. The press release includes a link to an EBR posting.
The KHSS will NOT be a provincial park. It will be based on a NEW land use designation called a Recreation Reserve and will fall under the Public Lands Act.
Our traditional (heritage) recreational activities will be protected in legislation including fishing, hunting, trapping, snowmobiling etc.
Private property, leased property and access rights appear to be protected.
Activities could be permitted or curtailed within Utilization Zones.
The MNR reserves the right to levy user fees.
Commercial forestry and mining will not be permitted.
Management of the area will rest with the MNR.
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.
Press Release:


Rick Meridew
Co-Chair, SGKH

Ed note the attachments are available on this site. bill 239

(ed comment   Wendy's re attendance (or lack of it) at Jan 8 SGKH meeting !! note Janice  is Janice GRIFFITHS and there is a page devoted to Ms Griffiths less than stirling opinions)--

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wendy Lyttle" <>

Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 3:06 PM
Subject: FW: To-nights Meeting - Thoughts and comments from

Hi All:  I'm going home..not well so will miss the meeting tonight.  My comments below come from some members and our board members and are comments for discussion.
Original Message-----
Wendy Lyttle
Wednesday, January 08, 2003 2:59 PM

If you receive this message would be grateful if you could pass along our thoughts for this meeting. Was planning to come but I have the flu and fading fast so am going home very soon.  CCA input to-date.  We sent an e-mail message to our members re the recent announcement.  Being Xmas and all, feedback has been very minimal but consensus todate is that members don't like the proposed bill.The CCA Board of Directors are not comfortable with the outcome either. Comments are they don't speak to the environment issues. We've read the Act.  They completely disregarded the environment issues under the LSC recommendations.  In fact, over $500,000 of tax payers money was wasted on a process that was mandated by the MNR but not adhered to. The SGKH proposal has more meat in the documentation then in the proposed act. Opposition is rising against this act and some of our members are doing the same.  Can you forward me the minutes of the meeting ASAP even if in just a review of comments so I can talk with our directors and see what position CCA will take? Janice Griffins communication of yesterday  has some value points. Will these be addressed to-night?  Did the SGKH get what it wanted. No Provincial Park designation yes, traditional activities and protection of private property rights yes (but that was in the LSC recommendations too)
The Proposed ACT vs what the SGKH proposed doesn't marry in terms of "Legacy of Protection" - combining long-term environmental protection safeguarding of the site's nature and cultural heritage values.  Nothing  on co-steward management nor partnership is mentioned in the ACT.  Even the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters requested that a new  designation supporting the efforts that enshrines our natural and cultural heritage be looked at. They got the traditional hunting and angling activities only.  Has anyone thought about the enviable activities increasing from the GTA area into these regions. Nothing will stay status quo no matter what designation prevails.  All areas will see increase won't remain the same and I don't see this being addressed in the Act.  There is no real concrete substance to "Fee for Usage" service charge mentioned in the ACT. Monies, methods, implementation, controls, monitoring system, were not addressed under the subject. Janice is correct in stating normally proposed bills presented in parliament read around 20-30 pages. (OFAH can verify this) In talking with a few of my colleagues here at CSAE who deal with Advocacy, they too see this bill providing very little credibility and they don't even know what the background is.
The Good News victory has many flaws.  It would be encouraging to see that the SGKH recognize this factor and such move towards a more stable version of the ACT being re-drafted if that is what the term is or if that is even possbile.  If not, the SGKH should perhaps rethink supporting the present ACT and advise the Minister that this ACT needs more meat to it. Again, this is a suggestion that is recommended based on Len's recent e-mail in response to some questions I asked the group recently.
Supporting the recommended Bill means that SGKH support all text of the Bill.  Is that correct?  Or does SGKH desire the bill to have more meaning in terms of the "Legacy of Protection" statements made by SGKH to Minister Oulette in a recent communication?
There is now a group called friends of the Kawartha's Highlands Signature site who are lobbying the opposition to fight this bill too. (If you didn't know that already)

Let me know what happens, sorry I can't make it. Wendy

Wendy Sue Lyttle, CSP
Manager, Membership & Professional Development
416-363-3555 x 239

Subject: Update on Kawartha Highlands Signature Site Designation
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 14:26:02 -0500

As promised, we are doing our best efforts to keep members uptodated on the KHSS designation which was announced recently.  The public has until January 26th to respond. 

There are several sites that you should be aware of: (ed: this site was on the list)

<> (ed: this site and some others like it, have on them "1-click canned letters" their customers can ship to the premier and the MNR environmental registry - they have received letters from australia!!!  Re Wendy's 500 letters comment below - - Get real eh!!)( We also note these sites say they are non profit and their links as to who they are are non functioning - don't send money(>.<) ;-))). Maybe we all should edit the canned letter as they suggest,  to say "Call an  election Ernie."  and punch the submit button 25 times a day for the next few weeks!!
<>  (linked on this site)
<> (ditto)
<> (ditto)
<> (last try this connection was down)

-The MNR has received over 500 letters/e-mails since December saying "We don't want Bill 239"
-Local Stakeholders Committee reject the Bill (press release sent in first message)(on this site) - 73% of submissions to MNR were in favour of LSC recommendations.
-Stakeholders Group of Kawartha Highlands endorse Bill 239
-Recent article in Globe & Mail is attached.

Point of clarification:  Under Bill 239, Kawartha Highlands Provincial Park stays status quo and cottagers on our lake has major concerns about that.

Please check these websites and draw your own assumptions. You can either respond to us (your executive) or take appropriate action as you see fit.

I have attached also another copy of Bill 239 in case you need it. (ed: couldn't find it  but it is on this web site)

Your Board of Directors of CCA

From, Thursday, January 16, 2003
 Ontario wildlife sanctuary bill snubs citizens' advice

Mike Harris garnered a lot of ink and goodwill when he appeared to embrace environmentalism just before the 1999 election. Under the Living Legacy program, he committed the government to the largest expansion of parks and protected areas in history -- 378 areas comprising about 2.4 million hectares would be set aside. That was then. This is now. Natural Resources Minister Jerry Ouellette is under fire from environmentalists for abandoning the Harris program and bowing to pressure from hunters and snowmobilers in shaping what had been a planned wildlife sanctuary north of Peterborough.

Mr. Ouellette introduced legislation just before Christmas to deal with the Kawartha Highlands, a so-called "signature site" of more than 35,000 hectares of forests, rocky barrens and wetlands containing uncommon plant species. Bill 239 has enraged a local "stakeholders' committee" that spent two years considering how the area should be administered by balancing the differing interests of hunters, anglers, cottagers and environmentalists. It has labelled the bill an "obscenity" that will lead to environmental degradation.

"I can't see a single one of our recommendations in this piece of legislation," said Tom Cole, a Lakefield lawyer and committee member.

When it was appointed by the government in July of 2000, the 12-member committee was told it could recommend that the site be managed as a provincial park, a conservation reserve or some combination of the two. Local MPP Chris Hodgson talked about a "made-in-Kawarthas" approach to protecting the highlands.

Instead, Mr. Ouellette opted for a made-in-Queen's-Park solution. He set aside the committee's unanimous report and discovered a third (previously unknown) option -- something called a "recreation reserve." His slight, four-page bill refers to recreational activities but does not mention the word "conservation."

He says the proposed legislation would prohibit such practices as commercial timber harvesting and gravel mining, but he would also allow "traditional" activities such as snowmobiling to continue -- apparently unrestricted.

The stakeholders' committee rejected the idea that snowmobiling was a traditional activity for the simple reason that sitting astride a two-stroke motor and scaring wild animals is a fairly modern hobby. It recognized the environmental impact of the machines but it recommended, as a compromise, that snowmobilers be given access to a network of trails and that cottagers be permitted to ride to their remote properties.

This was one reason environmentalists didn't find everything they wanted in the committee's report. But they said they were willing to work with it and try to strengthen it as it was formed into law.

Critics of Bill 239 suggest that Mr. Ouellette, an avid hunter who once appeared in a National Rifle Association infomercial, was protecting his pals. A Conservative familiar with the issue believes the government thought it had stacked the committee so that hunters' interests would be safeguarded, and it was so taken aback at the recommendations that it decided to ignore them.

The critics' suspicions were deepened by the fact that hunting organization representatives were watching from the gallery when Mr. Ouellette introduced the bill for first reading on Dec. 12.

"It makes you believe the minister already had his decision made and the committee brought in the wrong answer," said Ernie Parsons, the Liberals' natural resources critic.

Mr. Ouellette, who was unavailable for an interview yesterday, has yet to meet committee chairwoman Sissy Tanner, but his staff are suggesting a compromise is possible. Ms. Tanner, a paramedic from Apsley, says her committee will have to decide whether continuing to work with the ministry means endorsing a process that sidelined it in the first place. She doesn't believe the bill can be amended to reflect the committee's views.

"I think it should be scrapped," she said. "I don't think it's salvageable at all."
 Copyright 2002 | Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc.

From: "Dennis & Wendy Lyttle" <>
Subject: Re: Last Chance
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 14:51:01 -0500

Rick:  I wanted you to know, as well as other members of the SGKH, the outcome of our decision in responding to Bill 239.

The board had a conference call on Thursday evening.  We reviewed both the MNR Explanation comments of Jan 13 2002 and the SGKH Notes on the Recreation Reserve Act 2002. LSC recommendations, members input plus our the outcome of our Annual Meeting in Oct results in the conclusion that CCA opposes Bill 239.

We recognize that the SGKH is very much committed to protection and co-management aspects which is what CCA wants.  We however, find the Bill just doesn't convince us.  The exclusion of the existing KHPP from the Act causes us to go back to square one in getting this to be a managed park. We have members on the NE corner of our lake who are most upset at this decision as well.  We cannot accept this.  CCA remains a member of SGKH but we cannot support this Bill. We respectfully as all to understand our position.
Thanks Wendy

Reply-To: "Catchacoma Cottagers' Association" <>

Subject: Association Response to Bill 239
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 14:59:46 -0500

Hello Again.  Your Board met on Thursday evening to discuss this new Bill 239 Recreation Reserve.  Two board members attended a MNR meeting about the Act on Wed evening.  We also reviewed the SGKH comment notes on the ACT.  Our response  is attached. Regards Wendy

January 25 2003

Dan Marinigh,
Manager, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
300 Water St.
Peterborough, ON K9J 8M5
Bill 239 ? Recreation Reserve Act
EBR AB02E4002

re: EBR AB02E4002 -Kawartha Highlands Signature Site and Bill 239

Mr. Marinigh:

We are deeply disappointed and discouraged !

The Catchacoma Cottagers’ Association held its largest General Meeting ever last October during Thanksgiving weekend and overwhelmingly agreed to support the creation of a well-funded and properly managed Provincial Park for the entire Kawartha Highlands Signature Site.

For many reasons, Bill 239 and the designation of a "Recreation Reserve" falls far short of the needs of this beautiful area. The name does nothing to promote or suggest the necessary environmental protection, and the existing problems related to unregulated camping and access are not resolved.  The Bill ignored recommendations set forth by the LSC concerning the existing Kawartha Highlands Provincial Park which has been excluded entirely in the Recreation Reserve Act 2002.

Minister Ouellette, please reconsider !

The environment, the people of Ontario, and the neighbouring cottagers of Lake Catchacoma deserve better!

Your Respectfully,

Wendy Sue Lyttle
Catchacoma Cottagers Association
cc..  Jerry Ouellette ? Natural Resources Minister
The Honourable Ernie Eves, Premier
 Dalton McGuinty, Leader of the Opposition
 Leona Dombrowsky - MPP

Ed note: the following email quote was received "...  we NEVER  as a group"agreed to overwhelmingly support a well-funded and properly managed PP for the entire KHSS" - did we??? I have NO recollection of that. Do you have the minutes for the Oct CCa meeting? The ONLY vote taken concerned the NE quadrant no buffer - as I remember....
…I went through everything I have from the Oct 12  meeting and there is nothing to indicate what WSL says. Also Wendy makes a number of points that are also wrong - the act does have protections for the environment and natural values  and Dan stated in the sgkh meeting that they would attempt to change the wording to reflect that more clearly. Existing PP problems can't be addressed under this Act as was stated in the meeting  because it comes under Ont. Parks and they are very aware of the needs around this re management and access. Also in the meeting stated clearly  - that Dan  and Doug would be in touch with the new Park supervisor to attempt to clarify some of these issues. Wendy heard all of this as clearly as everyone else. Both men said clearly that MNR has NO money to fund or manage the Park. I can't understand how all these people requesting/demanding a funded, managed park can't see that. Why on earth do they want the area enlarged when they can't handle what they have.."

From: "Catchacoma Cottagers' Association" <>
Subject: Fw: Check it out
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 11:54:33 -0500

CCA has been asked to forward this communication for your information.
Thanks Wendy

 ----- Original Message -----
 From: <>
 Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 5:46 PM
 Subject: Check it out

 Dear friends of the Kawartha Highlands Park,

I have just added a KHPP link to my web site.Take a look at it and tell me what you think and keep passing on the petition if you can.
my web site is

Ed : We have linked to a page on this site devoted to his comments and our view of them. You will see, that it is misinformation, and where that is coming from.
Just so you are all clear how impartial Wendy is we have it on good authority Wendy call the guys at SGKH and asked that they remove the link to this site. Can't stand the light of day eh Wendy!!


February 14 2003

Jim Whelan
Anstruther Lake Cottagers’ Assn. Inc
Box 284
Apsley, ON KOL 1A0

Dear Jim:   E-mail Communication to ALCA Members February 3 2003

Catchacoma Cottagers' Association is requesting a retraction of misinformation that you disseminated to your members on February 3 2003.

It would of be advisable if you had called first to verify comments made under "Let’s address the emails and statements concerning CCA" We do not intend to get into a verbal or written discussion here but to provide you with factual information to set the record straight.

In response:

Under ? Let’s address the emails and statements concerning CCA

Point # 2 ?

a) Tom Flynn was not denied an opportunity to speak.  At our AGM prior to the open forum discussion around the KHSS ? only members of CCA can have the floor on items from the agenda or discussions prior to voting.  Mr. Flynn did attend that part of our meeting.  While guests can be present, they cannot take part in discussions unless previously noted under new business prior to the continuation of our Annual General Meeting. At the AGM, no member asked that Mr. Flynn respond to discussions that were tabled.

Mr. Flynn was recognized and assumption was that he was here for the open forum.  We were not advised otherwise.

b) Sissy Tanner ? At the open forum on KHSS issues ? Sissy Tanner was present only to respond to questions from the floor.  Nancy Wilson, of the MNR, responded to a question from the floor and indicated that the best person to respond to that would be Sissy Tanner.  Sissy did respond to the question.  She did not make any kind of presentation nor talk for half and hour. Her statement took no longer than five minutes if that.

c) The open forum on the status of the KHSS was organized by CCA, at members’ request, but was not part of our AGM.  There were outstanding motions stemming from issues brought forth at our AGM and in order to vote on these motions, our members wanted more information. Therefore, our August AGM meeting went into recess until more informed information could be presented.  At the information session we had attendance from other lakes, local people and had invited representatives from Catchacoma Rate Payers Association and SGKH.

Mr. Flynn had ample opportunity at this open forum to present questions or respond to MNR issues.  He did respond to the Beaver Lake Road parking issues when that was brought up.

d) CCA were more than disappointed to learn that the existing Kawartha Highlands Provincial Park was excluded from Bill 239.  This is in our back yard and now we move forward to try and resolve these issue.  Mr. Flynn will work with us to address what can be done. More concerns now arise with news of a possible new road being lobbied connecting Highway 28 to 507.

e) Monies.  All along the question of funding has been in the forefront no matter what designation was given the KHSS.  The same applies to the proposed Bill 239.  No funds they’re either. No matter what they’ll be a need to push for funds.  The MNR was told to look at some budgetary funds from the Ontario Living Legacy Lands for Life.  They are to develop some sort of budget but no further details were given at that meeting.

f) CCA property owners fighting for a buffer zone.

Our association sent a questionnaire to cottage owners directly affected by the designation and in specific the boundary issues ? No Buffer Zone on the Northeast quadrant of Lake Catchacoma. Below is an excerpt from our AGM meeting on October 12th.

At the June 19th meeting of the Board of Directors, in response to comments from a couple of members who stated that the Board had not "formally" asked members with cottages in the northeast quadrant of Lake Catchacoma, (being those most affected by the park boundaries) if they were in favour of a general use crown land corridor to be a ‘buffer zone’ between the proposed park and private property, the Board decided to send a questionnaire.  Board members had informally spoken with many of the cottagers’ who had informed them that they did not want a buffer zone between their property and the park.

Fifty questionnaires were mailed. As of September 11, 2002, 17 (34%) of the questionnaires have been returned and the results are as follows:

YES ? 3 ? Favoured a Buffer Zone
NO ? 13 ? Did not favour a Buffer Zone
Neutral ? 1

Further, this issue was brought up again after the open forum of the KHSS when our AGM meeting resumed at 4:00 PM on Oct 12.  At that point, the outstanding motions dealing with the Buffer Zone were addressed once more.   It was clear to all in attendance that the majority of people  (our largest turnout in years) voted against a Buffer Zone. The chair did not even have to take a count for or against.

You stated in your communication to your members, that a clear majority of persons owning properties that would be directly affected by the westerly extension of the existing KHPP boundary on the northeast quadrant of Lake Catchacoma are clearly fighting for a Corridor (buffer zone). This is simply not true.

Lastly, our upclose problem with the present KHPP is now our fight. We are alone in this and have indicated to all members that we will push Ontario Parks to do something. Expanding the disaster is short term thinking if you believe that the new designation "Recreation Reserve" is the answer.  Our belief is a Park Designation would best protect this area.  Our members who have property around Bottle Creek and off Beaver Lake road have real issues and this new designation does not address any of their concerns.

Jim, you have put forth false information concerning our association.  CCA request that this letter be circulated to your members with an apology for sending out unverified information.  We know where the information came from, a member of our own association who was at the AGM.  He continues again and again to attempt to discredit CCA and bring others to the table with his false information.  This same individual posted misinformation on his website, which is linked, to SGKH.  Our association requested SGKH to either erase the CCA misinformation or unlink the website.  That request was done January 25th.

CCA respect the issues and views your association has.  CCA respect the workings of the SGKH as well as the Local Stakeholders Committee.  We made our decisions on informed information.  The best protection is a managed Park designation.  Nothing in the Recreation Reserve talks about environment protection and excluding the existing Kawartha Highlands Provincial Park sent a message to our association.

Yours respectfully

Wendy Sue Lyttle
Catchacoma Cottagers Association

Ed comment: True leadership comes from confidence in your position, making all sources of information available to the public, clear that they have the intelligence to know their own mind, and all the while refraining from discrediting those whose views are different by resorting to bias, prejudice, and fear.
CCA have no formal position on a "Park" But ---
We have included the full Turner family submission to The LSC dated Nov 25 2002. It is a Word document wherein they say:
"We therefore request that,
1. There be no buffer zone between existing private property and the park boundaries. Such a zone may permit or facilitate future development such as roads.
2.  The park be established as a wilderness park and not as a highly developed park with established campsites, etc.
3. No new roads or ATV trails be permitted anywhere in the area that will lead people to the forest area around  Lake Catchacoma.
4.  Existing roads and ATV trails (notably at the Beaver Lake road and the ATV trails north of Lake Catchacoma off highway 507) be controlled, and well policed by Park Wardens or other appropriate authorities.
5.  Existing shoreline Crown land not be actively promoted as access points to the park from Lake Catchacoma by either the construction of parking lots, facilities, docks and launching ramps or passively by noting such shoreline access point to the park on maps.
Such access points would lead to increased transient boat traffic on Lake Catchacoma by larger boats or seadoos. Drivers of many of these vessels would cruise the lake system rather than access the park, increasing the lake pollution and shore erosion and greatly increasing the risk of introducing Zebra mussels  to the lake system.
This position is fundamentally the position of the CCA as I am sure the membership "understood" it at the annual meeting taken on the issue of a "Buffer Zone". It corresponds to the unanimous motion passed at the end of the meeting that was seconded by Dave Turner. The Turner family is the only real support that CCA has within the area of the NE quadrant associated with the park. Ann Turner Murphy is on the executive.
This letter demonstrates a unique comprehension of what a "Park" is or ought to be. To paraphrase 'It is an untouched, undeveloped, wilderness, guarded by wardens to eliminate vehicles (read people), with no facilities, limited access, that the public is not told about.

We believe that such a public position does more to discredit the CCA than anything we could possibly say or do. It says "no park at all" and all we wanted was no park on our lake i.e. a Buffer. If we had all had a reasonable debate at that meeting leading to real comprehension of possibilities,  a united front with a reasonable position, we could well have attained almost everything we all wished for (i.e. tranquility on the lake??).
Wsl included this attachment from Jim Whelan   President ALCA  we note this to be a Feb 3rd doc

Box 284 Apsley Ontario K0L 1A0  705-656-1339

Hi Everyone

Recently concerns have been expressed by a few persons that we are not relaying information to you immediately.  But without the help of Reg Lashmar (deceased), and with Bob Niergarth being so busy, and with me visiting my family in Calgary and Vancouver Island, it has been impossible to respond as quickly as we normally do. As well as the emails, the Reeve of North Kawartha Township Sissy Tanner has been on the radio and papers stating that the majority of people in the area want the KHSS designated a Park.

Let’s address the emails and statements:

A minority of  our fellow cottagers voted in the balloting for a Provincial Park and No Corridor of General Use Crown Land (a buffer zone), and we respect their right to voice their opinion.  However, they are in a minority of some 12% to 15% and are writing as though they formed the majority.

1) Your information on Wolf Lake must still be coming from the past president Dana Dvorak. The new president Todd Kearney was elected on the Park issue, and Todd is a member of the SGKH and supports its positions.

2) Your letter from Catchacoma Lake is interesting. At the CCA Annual General Meeting held October 12th, 2002 Tom Flynn, the Reeve of Galway-Cavendish and Harvey, was refused an opportunity to speak because he was not a paid up member of the CCA.  For your information Reeve Tom Flynn has always backed and helped to found the SGKH, so that the voice of the local people in the Township of GCH could be heard.  He has studied the matter extensively and has always felt that a Corridor (buffer zone) was required to protect the interests of GCH ratepayers and to provide municipal services that will be required in the future.

In contrast, Sissy Tanner, the Reeve of North Kawartha Township, was allowed to speak for about  half an hour. She is the Chair of the Ontario Living Legacy -  Local Stakeholders Committee and recommended the Park designation for the ENTIRE  Kawartha Highlands Signature Site.

Further, in the CCA letter it criticizes the Minister for not addressing problems associated with the existing KHPP in the legislation. (We can certainly understand that they would like something done with the mess that Park is in.) YOU DO NOT ADDRESS PARK ACT ISSUES,  IN PUBLIC LANDS ACT LEGISLATION.

The CCA stated that it  "supports a well-funded and properly managed Provincial Park for the entire Kawartha Highlands Signature Site." The MNR has clearly stated that there is no additional money in the system. The MNR is trying to find private sector partners or reducing the number of "Operational" Parks. Most of them, as you know, like the present KHPP get no funding.  Why not keep the KHSS as a Recreation Reserve and push for a fully funded operating KHPP. This would target money where the problems are - the existing park.
 We asked a member of the Local Stakeholders Committee what would happen if the Gov’t designated the KHSS a Provincial Park and then did not fund it?  Answer: We would withdraw the LSC support!

Tell me at that stage, with the Park already designated, what good would that do?  The two Townships would have a massive Park designation and no funding - precisely the same unsatisfactory situation as GCH and the existing KHPP are in today.

The shortage of money is simple, look at the costs this Gov’t is faced with:
Hydro,   Education,    Medicare,     Public Transit, etc. etc. etc.

Let's face facts, the Govt. can not justify or afford to make an area of this size and complexity into an operational Provincial Park.

Further, most of the CCA executive and about 90% of the owners of properties on Catchacoma are not directly affected because their properties are on islands or the west and south shores of Catchacoma which are outside of the proposed Park boundary.

However, a very clear majority of persons owning properties that would be directly affected by the westerly extension of the existing KHPP boundary, that is properties on the easterly side of Catchacoma, are fighting for a Corridor (buffer zone) or NO PARK adjacent to their properties.

The CCA has a major concern with the present unmanaged KHPP as you can see by their letter.  However, the east-side residents have an "up close" problem with the present KHPP. (thus the fight) Why would the CCA want to expand this environmental disaster over to us?

3)  There is also criticism of the ALCA for supporting the SGKH!  Here is the reason our Association supports it:

Ballot Vote 88.9% NO PARK

On the Landing ballot that went out at the same time, approx. 87% voted in favor of spending the money to get professional advice, approx. 13% against.  We did what the majority asked, with the Condos and with the Land Use Issue.

* Let's put the record straight here and now:
* No other Lake Ass’n. has sent out the amount of information that has been sent to you.
* No other Lake Ass’n. has had a straightforward ballot on the Park and Corridor.
* No other Lake Ass’n. has as much at stake as Anstruther, we are the jewel in the middle, and are completely encased in any designation.
* No other Lake Ass’n. advised the LSC and the Minister that they were not speaking for 100% of their properties. We have advised them in our response to both that we are speaking for 88%. They can do the math, they know that approx. 15% or 30 to 40 properties are in favor of a Park.

Only one other Lake sent out all the information we were formulating, Vision, Management Plan and Designation (I still like our Heritage Designation better than Recreational) and we have put it forward once again. Also, in the ALCA response, we also specified the Management team we would like to have in place and we will be putting that forward again.

Now to comments from Dan Marinigh and the Table from Dan and SGKH

As stated above I was visiting my grandchildren and could not attend the meeting, but have a summary of comments made by Dan Marinigh in answer to the questions you submitted and those from the 20 other stakeholders.  As you can imagine many of the questions were the same.

SKGH meeting  Wednesday, January 22, 2003

Doug Unsworth, acting district manager, and Dan Marinigh who is receiving EBR input and who developed the legislation were present. Dan was asked to attend the meeting by Minister Ouellette’s office. He stated that Jerry Ouellette and Chris Hodgson support the new designation as stated in their news release Dec. 12th,  and that a Recreation Reserve is the designation this government is going with.

Dan met with the Ontario Living Legacy Local Stakeholders Committee on Monday January 20th, and explained that if the LSC wanted to work with the Gov't on the legislation they would continue at least until the minister responded to their recommendations re management and co-stewardship. However if the LSC did not wish to work with the Gov't on the Recreation  Reserve legislation the LSC was finished.

Dan explained that two things move forward together:

        1] The designation in the form of legislation can either amend Bill 239 to make changes ie. add wording to strengthen the environmental protection aspect or proceed with the Bill as it is.

        2] The boundaries in the form of regulations. The final boundaries are still outstanding.

There are things not in the legislation;

         The MNR already has management plans and co-stewardship models in place to work from.

       There is a request already in for Ontario Living Legacy monies.

 Other Comments
        -new roads can be considered through the normal process
        -the shoreline road allowance remains under the control of each Township
        - the present moratorium continues as interim protection,
        -the existing laws will still prevail-the legislation obviously builds on them
        -prohibited uses in the legislation are stronger than the Park Act-and enforcement is under the
         Public Lands Act.
       -.there are plans to add more to the act on environmental protection and enforcement.

End of direct comments

Sissy Tanner the North Kawartha Reeve and the chair of the OLLLSC has been quoted as saying the majority of residents in the area are in favor of the Park designation. Neither Galway-Cavendish &Harvey nor North Kawartha Councils supported the LSC recommendations.

In other words Sissy Tanner and Janice Griffith could not convince even one person on Council that the Park designation was a good idea.

Let’s look at other committees and Associations:

1. The original Burleigh Anstruther Chandos Community Stakeholders Committee agreed the KHSS was not suitable for a Park designation. (all local stakeholders)
2. The North Kawartha Lakes Association agreed the KHSS was not suitable for a Park designation. (10 Lake Associations in North Kawartha Township)
3. The Stakeholder Groups of the Kawartha Highlands agreed the KHSS was not suitable for a Park designation. (40 stakeholder groups)
4. The Meteek report the MNR's own commissioned Land Use Guideline completed in 2000, states clearly that the KHSS due to it's thin layer of soil and significant amount of rock outcrop is already at or near capacity and therefore is not an appropriate candidate for a Provincial Park. This has never been released to the public
5. Further as stated above both councils GCH never supported the designation, and NK withdrew their support of the Provincial Park draft recommendation in Nov. 2001.

As you know we asked the LSC on several occasions just to meet with us and were always turned down.  Now we have a Minister that we have met with, the Minister sent Dan Marinigh and Doug Unsworth to our meeting, and he is listening to our input. If you look at the LSC document and the new Act document, you will see that the basics are much the same, but without the Park designation and advertising. The major difference is that a management plan can be created that would be affordable and therefore sustainable.

Think about it, this Minister is doing his best to listen to a plan that is workable, and environmentally sound, so lets get behind him with solid positive solutions and put them forward to-gether.

Best Regards to all
Jim Whelan   President ALCA

ed note:this information was not included

From:  Rick  Aube
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 10:26 PM
Cc: Rick Work; al ross
Subject: Association Clarification - (Beaver-Cavendish-Bottle-McGinniss) 

Wendy, I'm becoming quite tired of all the tactics and misrepresentation being used by a small group of people purporting to represent a large group of people. I think it is time to clarify some things and put them straight so there are no further misunderstandings of our association's views.

First of all within the attachment that has come to my attention you have referred to the Bottle Lake Association not supporting a buffer zone, which is completely erroneous. There is no Bottle Lake Association, Bottle Lake is included in our association, as you would know if you were truly knowledgeable about our association. (Beaver, Cavendish, BOTTLE, Mcginnis Cottage Owners Organization Inc.)  These people, and all our members, which is currently about 140 strong do support our association executive and our initiatives on behalf of the association. Therefore, you cannot be speaking on behalf  of the people of Bottle Lake, they are not members of your association but active members of the Beaver-Cavendish-Bottle-McGinnis Cottage Owners Organization Inc. of which I'm currently the president as you well know.  If you need further clarification please do not hesitate to call me. I understand that you have my home phone number although you have never used it.

To be perfectly clear we have long been in support of a BUFFER ZONE. Not one of our members wants a park at their back door nor do we think other cottage / land owners should be subjected to that within the region. As a matter of fact, so there is no further misunderstanding of where our association stands on this issue, I have attached copies of our responses to the LSC, which have never been acknowledged or even considered in the printed public responses made available subsequent to the LSC review period.

Secondly, you had represented at a meeting that you had spoken to me about speed limit signs that were going to be placed on the lake system, which was a completely false statement, I had not spoken to you about this matter until after  your meeting when you called me and for the record I had discussed this matter with Roy Lawson earlier in the day, which I thought was quite courteous on his part.

Speaking to people whom I know on Catchacoma, I have to question the percentage of support you really do have from your cottage owners, is it the whole lake or just a few cottagers within a small area who have a personal agenda and are possibly self serving.

I think in the future you should discuss matters of concern to our organization with me prior to speaking publicly on our behalf - I can represent our group quite adequately given the chance to do so.  Please do not use our association name without talking to me FIRST in the future.

I would be more than willing to discuss further any items or response at your convenience and I thank you for your attention to these matters.

Best regards,

Rick Aube
President, Beaver-Cavendish-Bottle-McGinnis Cottage Owners Organization Inc.
Attachment #  1  1Lyttle Note.doc This letter is on this web page

Attachment  #2   - Wilson 9-281.doc

September 28, 2001

Beaver, Bottle, Cavendish,McGinnis Lakes Cottage Owners Association

Ms. Nancy Wilson
Local Stakeholder Committee
Ministry of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 500,  Bancroft, ON K0L 1C0

September 28, 2001


Dear: Ms. Wilson

Our Cottage Owners association has received and reviewed the proposed recommendations of the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site (KHSS).  We would like to thank you for the extension that has been given for comments of these recommendations. Our review acknowledges and commends your group for the inclusion of what has been referred to as the Buffer Zone around the Beaver Lake area, which we view as a positive step that has been taken for all cottage owners of the private land in that area. However, we also believe that all surrounding lakes within the system should be afforded the same opportunity and rights for future hydro and road development.

During our review there were some points that were raised and that we feel require further consideration and evaluation prior to finalizing the KHSS.

I have outlined below our key concerns and points requiring clarification for the benefit of all members of our association.

* improper vehicle parking on the Beaver Lake Road (BLR) will hamper medical or property emergency access and increase the potential for fire
* vandalism can develop the insecurity of property owners and reduce the integrity of the area
* extensive parking of vehicles on both sides of the BLR has proven to be hazardous for both pedestrians and drivers alike
* increased traffic volume has adversely affected the habitat of animals and the enjoyment of the environment itself
* the road into Bottle Creek has been incorrectly identified as a higher grade road than what currently exists
* continuous parking and blocking of the fire access road into Bottle Lake

Health / Environment
* inadequate privy facilities will increase water pollution, not only for cottage owners on Bottle Lake but the lower lakes in that area into which that water flows
* the absence of garbage facilities has resulted in private property owners, the roads and the lakes being the victims of this refuse
* destruction of the forest has been evidenced by the cutting of trees in and around the parking area and campsites and on private property

Buffer Zone
* buffer area around Beaver Lake is commended as a step in the right direction but;
this buffer area should be expanded to include private property owners on all the adjoining lakes
* clarification of this zone is required as to the rights of all property owners adjacent to the park
* proposed new trails should not impact or be near any private property

Property Values / Taxes
* increased property taxes to subsidize the maintenance and policing of the proposed KHSS are not acceptable
* effects on assessment and property values
* succession rights of the existing private property owners within the signature site
* the increased vandalism will result in increased insurance rates for property owners and could reduce property values
* confirmation of the lakes included / excluded from the signature site area
* clarification of recreational activities for those lakes
*  increased non resident access to our lake system will apply pressure to our limited lakes capacities

Park Management
* all cottage owner associations within the KHSS should be allowed to have a minimum of one member included in the development and implementation of the final management recommendations
* appropriate access from a more suitable point and extensive control of entry at that access point
* effective privy and garbage facilities must be established

In summary, we feel that it is paramount that no further campsites be included on Bottle or Sucker lakes until such time that an appropriate access point can be established. We further recommend the closing of the existing campsites and access to this area to allow this area to rehabilitate and request that this area be removed from the website until all comments and inaccuracies can be addressed and resolved.

We strongly encourage the committee to review and consider the information provided in the best interest of not only the cottage owners, but the area itself in which many of us have lived and come to enjoy for a great many years.

All property owners have continued to be very conscientious of this the area over a great many years to ensure that the well being of the lakes and all the surrounding area is maintained with the utmost integrity.

We look forward to your response and if you require any further information, we would be pleased to provide.

Yours truly,

R. Aube
Attachment - KHSS - June'01.doc

Lloyd F. Darlington
480 Queens Quay West
Suite 906W
Toronto, Ontario
M5V 2Y5

Ms. Nancy Wilson
Project Co-ordinator
Kawartha Highlands Signature Site
Ministry of Natural Resources
P. O. Box 500
Bancroft, Ontario
K0L 1C0               August 30, 2001

Dear Ms. Wilson:



I would like to take this opportunity to share with you the current views and concerns of our Association in regard to the creation of the KHSS.  By way of background, our Association has 140 subscribing members representing 95% of all cottages on Beaver, Cavendish, McGinnis and Bottle Lakes and we will be proudly celebrating our 46th anniversary this year.

First, let me say that we are pleased with the vision and strategy behind the Living Legacy and share the need to preserve the existing environment for future generations while permitting the use of the natural resources, provided of course it does not conflict with the preservation objectives.  The work of the Stakeholders Committee is very important indeed.

I would like to share however some concerns we have to help you in your deliberation and strongly encourage you to respond to them.  By doing so, we believe that the desirable aspirations of the Living Legacy will be realized.

 - 2 -

We believe that it is very important for you to recognize that the existing amount of private development around the Beaver, McGinnis, Cavendish Lakes as well as Catchacoma and Mississauga is very substantial.  Indeed, the KHSS web site in this regard is quite inaccurate, for example, with regards to its characterization of Beaver Lake.  Contrary to the web site, Beaver Lake is predominately private property  --  not crown land and we consider it very important for  a successful implementation of the KHSS that it NOT destroy or denigrate the enjoyment and rights of the existing  private property owners.  Let me explain.

The traffic flow into our community to the KHSS could become quite significant and some people believe that based on similar or smaller sites, it could  amount to 1,500 persons daily or even more.  1,500 daily visitors would approximate the numbers implied within a 1983 MNR document that projected 189 campsites by 2002 for the existing site.  That would mean a substantial increase in traffic and the number of cars and boats, much more than the capacity of Beaver Lake Road is capable of handling even if Beaver Lake Road was "upgraded".  The resultant impact on the private property owners whose property directly abut on Beaver Lake Road would be a disaster.  As we communicated in our earlier letter attached, our Association therefore does not consider Beaver Lake Road to be a viable choice as an access road to KHSS.  We recommend and strongly encourage that an alternative access road be selected.  We would support consideration being given to building an access road at the north end of Catchacoma south of Pencil Lake, that would not denigrate existing private property rights.  Alternatively, an access route off Highway 28 might also be considered.  Either of these alternatives would also facilitate the building of an appropriate parking capability.

We also suggest to you that serious consideration be given to the creation of a crown property buffer zone around the KHSS so that KHSS would not directly abut on existing private property.  This will help protect the existing rights of private property owners while in no way negatively impacting the values being created in KHSS.

We would ask that you consider our concerns as you formulate your recommendation.  Our 140 members place a high value indeed on our "local" community and over the years have diligently worked to protect it.  It is because of our love for the area, that we are concerned about interventions that might unwittingly destroy the overall value of the KHSS.   MNR and others have historically been sensitive to this consideration as evidenced by many studies evidencing concerns about the density of development on Beaver Lake, the quality of our lake water, and government interventions to prohibit lot severances because of environmental preservation concerns.  We are confident that your committee’s recommendations will continue to demonstrate these sensitivities.


 - 3 -

If I can be helpful to you in any way please call me at 416-927-5566 or at 705-657-3192.  We would also of course be happy to meet you "on site" to discuss these important matters.

Thank you for your attention.

Yours truly,

Lloyd F. Darlington


c.c.   Honourable J. C. Snobelen    Mr. Gary Stewart, M P P
 6th Floor      193 Simcoe Street
 Room 6630      Peterborough, Ontario
 Whitney Block     K9H 2H6
 99 Wellesley Street West
 Toronto, Ontario
M7A 1W3

Mr. John Millace     Mr. Chris Hodgson, MPP
Chief Executive Officer    777 Bay Street
Municipal Office     17th Floor
Buckhorn, Ontario     Toronto, Ontario
K0L 1J0      M5G 2E5

Mr. Al Ross      Ms. Wendy Lyttle, C. C. A.
President      827 Leslie Valley Drive
C. R. A. I.      Newmarket, Ontario
R. R. #1      L3Y 7H4
Buckhorn, Ontario
K0L 1J0

Mr. Tom Flynn     Ms. Wendy Moore
Reeve       Executive Director
General Delivery     F. O. C. A.
Lakehurst, Ontario     239 McRae Drive
K0L 2J0      Toronto, Ontario
        M4G 1T7

 Ms. Elizabeth Tanner
 Stakeholder Committee
 c/o Ministry of Natural Resources
       Project Office
 P. O. Box 500
 Bancroft, Ontario
 K0L 1C0

Attachment # 3  KHSS - October'02 (1).
October 28, 2002

Beaver, Bottle, Cavendish, McGinnis Lakes Cottage Owners Organization Inc.

Mr. Rick Aube, President
Beaver, Cavendish, Bottle and
McGinnis Lakes Cottage Owners Association
149 Dorset Road
Scarborough, Ontario

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

Re: MNR Proposal EBR #PB00E3003

Dear Mr. Ouellette:

The Beaver, Cavendish, Bottle, McGinnis Lakes Cottage Owners Association, Inc. has received and reviewed the November 2001 Recommendations Report for the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site. We acknowledge the enormous amount of time and effort the members of the Stakeholders Committee contributed in reaching their final recommendations.

Our foremost concern with regards to the KHSS is the need for strict regulations and that these regulations be enforced. The Stakeholders Committee has recognized the need for regulation and states that it would be best provided under as "Operating Provincial Park" designation. We, therefore, support this designation for the KHSS. Operating status is mandatory accompanied by adequate funding to ensure the area is sufficiently monitored to protect the natural environment and maintain a sustainable level of activity in the area.

We have witnessed first hand the dismal failure of the existing Kawartha Highlands Provincial Park largely due to lack of regulation, lack of funding, and its non-operating status. The abuse and degradation that has occurred due to lack of control and overuse cannot be allowed to continue in the extended area of the Signature Site. Regulations are needed to direct the activities in the park to areas where that activity can be sustained and away from environmentally sensitive areas that should to be protected from human activity. The Report recognizes that a system of reservation and permitting is necessary to ensure carrying capacity is not exceeded. Cottage owners also need some guarantees that park activities do not negatively impact their properties and the surrounding General Use crown land. This will be achieved by appropriate zoning in the KHSS.

The Recommendations Report states that legislation should be developed to enshrine planned activities and management policies (page 28).  We support this recommendation because we feel

       ...........Page two
Page two

the area must have consistent management over a long period of time. This would hopefully prevent the changes in administration and withdrawal of government support that occurred with the original Kawartha Highlands Provincial Park. Some stability is needed to prevent the type of problems that have developed in the original park.

The Stakeholders Committee made a strong recommendation that future management planning take into account the private property owners concerns regarding increased activity immediately adjacent to their lands and zone any future activities away from developed areas. (page 22) For our association this recommendation is of utmost importance. We urge that any future management policies for the site reflect this recommendation. The Report does not deal specifically with access points that we understand will be decided in the management  planning phase.  We interpret access as an activity to be zoned away from cottage roads and properties.

The Stakeholders Committee has recognized the need to carefully plan access points (page 6). During the past several years and especially since the KHSS was announced to the public, an increasing number of visitors to the existing Kawartha Highlands Provincial Park have been using the Beaver Lake Road to access Bottle and Sucker Lakes. An unsafe situation has developed and a significant amount of environmental degradation has occurred. The situation is out of control and distressing for cottagers in our association, especially those immediately adjacent to the area. This was never intended to be an access point for the park and must not be considered access in the future. This access should only be available to the cottagers who own property on Bottle Lake. The boundary of the KHSS in the northeast quadrant of Catchacoma Lake took into consideration the property owners desire to preserve the peacefulness and tranquillity of their property. For these same reasons, our association does not want general park access from the Beaver Lake Road.

The Stakeholders Committee identified many valued components in the KHSS such as wilderness, peacefulness and the natural heritage that surrounds us. These features of the area have been cherished by the cottagers and residents in our association for decades. Many members of our association are the original pioneers of their cottage properties and in numerous cases 3 or 4 generations are enjoying the family cottage. The recommendation to prohibit certain activities in the KHSS such as use of ATV’s and other motorized vehicles, PWC’s and, on some lakes, motorboats, is of great concern to us. The report suggests these banned activities could take place in the General Use areas, municipal roads and private cottage roads (pages 8 and 37). We do not want visitors to the area, who have formerly been using KHSS lands for their recreational activities to use our lakes and roads to carry out these activities that have been identified to have significant long-term environmental impacts. We too have concerns about noise, erosion of shorelines and the loons that nest on our lakes. We feel our lakes are already at, if not beyond, carrying capacity and cannot sustain additional boat/PWC traffic created by visitors to the area. The noticeable increase in boat traffic in recent years is already a problem on our lakes. We ask that no further suggestions for visitors to use our lakes and roads for these activities be made in future publications regarding the KHSS.
 ......Page three

  Page three

The Stakeholder Committee encourage cottage associations on Catchacoma, Mississauga,
Beaver and Gold Lakes work with the MNR to establish majority positions regarding the
restriction of certain activities (page 7). In the past, our concerns and complaints about the existing Kawartha Highlands Provincial Park have generally fallen on deaf ears. When contacted, MNR staff said there are no staff and no money to correct the situation. We hope that in the future our request for help to correct identified problems will not be ignored. Some mechanism for dialogue should be set up to deal with impact issues regarding the KHSS.

The report states that the members of the Stakeholders Committee recognize that there are current and pressing issues within the Signature Site at present. Because it may take several years to have an approved management plan for this area, they recommend an adequately funded Interim Management Statement to deal with some areas of concern (that) need more immediate attention (Page 42). We are pleased that the Committee has recognized the need to correct current problems. The public should have input into those interim management strategies. We urge that the campsites on Bottle and Sucker Lakes be closed to allow the area to rehabilitate. This would also alleviate the problems associated with visitors accessing the park from the Beaver Lake Road. The sites could be reopened when an appropriate access has been established away from cottage roads/properties and when adequate facilities and supervision are in place. It is important that no further advertising of the KHSS or use be allowed until management policies have been established and implemented.

Most of our concerns about the future of the KHSS are issues with respect to regulation and management. We hope that there will be significant public consultation in the next phase for the KHSS so that we may have input into the planning and management policies that will be developed to protect this beautiful area.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Recommendations Report. We look forward to your response.


Rick Aube
Beaver, Cavendish, Bottle, McGinnis Lakes
Cottage Owners Association, Inc.
Attachment #4  KHSS - August 02.doc
August 14, 2002

Beaver, Bottle, Cavendish, McGinnis Lakes Cottage Owners Association

Hon. Jerry Ouelette,
Minister of Natural Resources

Gary Stewart, MPP,
Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Natural Resources

Hon. Chris Hodgson
Minister of Municipal Affairs


Dear Sirs:

It has been sometime since I have last communicated the concerns of our association in regards to above noted proposal. A letter was submitted to Ms. Nancy Wilson on September 28, 2001 regarding the further development of recommendations and as I understand it, our letter has not been posted on the registry. This omission does question the integrity of that group and obviously, we require that this be corrected.

Our review of the recent update, in July, provided by the Local Stakeholder Committee surprisingly provides no updated information other than the vision. This  vision outlined does seem to be contradictory to the process and what has actually transpired over the past year. We also read that this group is sensitive to the criticism that has been lobbed their way. Well frankly, we are very concerned about our rights as property owners being violated and are sensitive to this fact.

We fully expect that the concerns of our association outlined below be taken into account before any further action is taken with this park and further suggest that upon the availability of further recommendations, that a minimum period of six (6) months be provided for public review and comment.

As follows:

* improper vehicle parking on the Beaver Lake Road (BLR) continues to be a problem and may well hamper medical or property emergency access and increase the potential for fires through the fire ban
* extensive parking of vehicles on both sides of the BLR has proven to be hazardous for both pedestrians and drivers alike
* increased traffic volume has adversely affected the habitat of animals and the enjoyment of the environment itself
* vandalism can develop the insecurity of property owners and reduce the integrity of the area

Health / Environment
* inadequate privy facilities are evident in the area and will increase water pollution, not only for cottage owners on Bottle Lake but the lower lakes in that area into which that water flows as evidenced within Beaver Lake
* the absence of proper garbage facilities or access to landfill sites has resulted in private property owners, the roads and the lakes being the victims of this refuse
* destruction of the forest has been evidenced by the cutting of trees in and around the parking area and campsites and on private property

Buffer Zone
* recommended buffer zone around Beaver Lake is commended as a step in the right direction but should be enlarged to the edge of Bottle Creek to allow greater privacy to private property owners
* all private property owners on the adjoining lakes should be entitled to a buffer zone

Property Values / Taxes
* effects on assessment and property values
* succession rights of the existing private property owners within the signature site
* the increased vandalism will result in increased insurance rates for property owners and could reduce property values
* confirmation of the lakes included / excluded from the signature site area
* increased non resident access to our lake system has applied pressure to our limited lakes capacities

Park Management
* all cottage owner associations within the KHSS should be allowed to have at least one member included in the development and implementation of the final management recommendations
* appropriate park access from a more suitable location than and extensive control of entry at that access point
* effective privy and garbage facilities must be established

Furthermore, we request  that the existing campsites and access to this area be  terminated to allow this area to rehabilitate and not be in use until acceptable controls and guidelines can be established. We also strongly encourage the access point be established north of Lake Catchacoma, which has more merit based on the fact that timber rights have been granted in that area and will require the development of a more suitable road. This will reduce traffic volume that now exists on the Beaver Lake Road.

In closing, we insist that the committee review and consider the above information provided for their next communicated recommendations.

We look forward to your response.  If you require any further information, please feel free to contact us .

Yours truly,

R. Aube

To: "Catchacoma Cottagers' Association" <>
From: "Catchacoma Cottagers' Association" <>

Subject: For Your Information re KHSS.
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:01:51 -0500

Hello:  I've been asked to circulate a notice of upcoming meeting this Wednesday concerning the KHSS.  This is the only meeting I've been aware of so far.

I'll be there but if it would be nice for others from our association attend as well.  CCA is receiving lots of messages around Bill 239. If some of you want me to forward same, I'll do so.  The messages are pros and cons and upcoming election issues.  Also FOCA - Federation of Ontario Cottagers Association - represents 500 associations does not support Bill 239.  (CCA is a member of FOCA)

Ed note: This was not forwarded to all CCA members.  Mike Colle did not attend and he has removed all references to Bill 239 from his web site.  The local riding (Halibertion victoria etc??)NDP candidate did. We are trying to determine the position of FOCA, when that decision was taken and by whom. There is no comment on their web site.  re (CCA is a member of FOCA) so are many of the other 20 ?? cottage associations in the area.

Ontario Provincial Parks: Wilderness Sanctuaries or Disneylands?

A Public Forum on the fate of Ontario's Parks

Wednesday, March 12
7 - 9 pm
Room 308, Metro Hall
55 John Street

Speakers include:
* Elizabeth Tanner, Chair of the Local Stakeholders Committee for the Kawartha Highlands
* Mike Colle, Liberal MPP, Eglinton-Lawrence
* Melissa Tkachyk, Earthroots Wilderness Campaigner
* Evan Ferrari, Wildlands League, Director of Parks and Protected Areas
* Barry Kent MacKay, Animal Protection Institute, Toronto Star Columnist
*  Plus a special theatre performance by the Tree House Players, a collective of professional actors and musicians that use the performing arts to raise ecological awareness.

Come join a public forum on the future of Ontario's Provincial Park system. Learn about the threats to Ontario's Parks and how we can move forwards to truly protect these special wilderness areas.

The Kawartha Highlands and other wilderness areas across Ontario are now threatened by Bill 239 'The Recreation Reserves Act', which puts
>commercial development and high-impact recreation ahead of conservation.

The Recreation Reserve Act:
  - strips away protection for the wildlife and natural environment and
  - replaces it with increased access and privileges for all-terrain vehicles,
  - snowmobiles, sport hunters and commercial hunt camps.
  - does not ensure the natural environment and wildlife will be protected;
  -  in fact, those words are not even mentioned in the Bill.
  -  reverses protection legislation for Ontario's Park system, setting a
  - dangerous precedent for the future of wilderness preservation in Ontario

Co-sponsored by Sierra Club Eastern Canada Chapter, Earthroots and the Peaceful Parks Coalition

For more information, contact
Melissa Tkachyk at Earthroots 416-599-0152 x12 or <>

Subject: Fw: khsspp
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:12:03 -0400

Hi:  A group of us attended the session in Parliament yesterday.  This is known as Bill 100. All groups involved with the KHSS issues signed off and
approved the contents of the Bill.  More to follow.
Wendy Lyttle


KHSSPP press release
KHSSPP backgrounder.:
KHSSPP speech to house.
The reader should note that what follows is a direct copy over and that if they should wish to see the actual document in living colour they may go to the government web site. We copy it here to hold for future reference.

Home > English > News : News Release Tuesday, June 17, 2003
News Rel ease
For Immediate Release
June 17, 2003
TORONTO -- Ernie Eves, Ontario's Premier, today introduced legislation to protect the Kawartha
Highlands Signature Site, which is part of Ontario's Living Legacy -- the largest natural heritage
conservation program in the province's history.
"If passed, this legislation would protect the ecological integrity of this semi-wilderness area,"
Eves said. "We are determined to preserve the natural heritage of the Kawartha Highlands, while
maintaining traditional uses and providing the opportunity for compatible recreational activities."
The proposed Kawartha Highlands Signature Site Park Act would establish ground rules for the
planning and management of the park. Under the proposed Act, low-impact activities such as
hiking, canoeing, birdwatching, hunting, fishing and trapping would continue. Mining and
aggregate extraction, forest harvesting and commercial power development would be banned. The
bill would also permit access to private property and private facilities on Crown land through an
approved road and trail system. The Eves government is planning to invest $6 million over four
years to help build park infrastructure such as roads, signs, boat launches and recreational
facilities such as trails and campsites.
Earlier this year, Eves asked Chris Hodgson, MPP for Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, to work with local
groups to reach a consensus on how to protect and manage the site over the long term. As
recommended by stakeholders, the government will establish the Kawartha Highlands Signature
Site as an operating provincial park.
"Our committee worked hard to come up with a 'made-in-Kawarthas' solution on how to best
protect this area," said Sissy Tanner, chair of the Local Stakeholder Committee. "We are glad the
government is implementing our recommendations and is moving ahead with protection."
"I'm pleased we were able to reach an agreement to protect the Kawartha Highlands," said
Hodgson. "This area is a provincial treasure and we are ensuring it is appropriately preserved for
future generations."
The Kawartha Highlands is one of the nine Signature Sites identified under Ontario's Living Legacy
as areas with exceptional natural features that warrant special protection and promotion.
For more information:
Premier’s Media Office
See Also:
Premier Ernie Eves' Web site - News Release
1 of 2 06/17/2003 3:38 PM
Home > English > News : News Backgrounder Tuesday, June 17, 2003
News Backgrounder
Ontario's Living Legacy
The Kawartha Highlands Signature Site is one of nine Signature Sites highlighted as unique
examples of Ontario's natural heritage under the government's Ontario's Living Legacy strategy.
Released in March 1999, Ontario's Living Legacy calls for the creation of 378 new parks and
conservation reserves -- the largest expansion of protected areas in Ontario history. This bold
strategy was the result of the Lands for Life planning process launched in February 1997 to chart
the future direction for land use and resource management on 45 million hectares of lands and
waters. Lands for Life was the most ambitious public-involvement initiative ever undertaken by
the Ministry of Natural Resources. More than 65,000 people had input into the process.
A Made-in-Kawarthas Approach
Since the release of Ontario's Living Legacy, extensive consultation has taken place on how to
protect and manage the Crown lands in the Kawartha Highlands. The government appointed a
Local Stakeholder Committee in July 2000 to seek public input and also sought feedback on the
committee's recommendations.
In March 2003, Chris Hodgson, MPP for Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, was asked by Premier Ernie
Eves to develop a consensus among key stakeholders about levels of protection and traditional
uses. This process led to the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site Charter endorsed by four
stakeholder groups -- the Local Stakeholder Committee, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and
Hunters, the Partnership for Public Lands and the Stakeholder Groups of the Kawartha Highlands.
(The Partnership for Public Lands includes the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, World Wildlife
Fund Canada and the Wildlands League -- a chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness
The charter documents the general agreement among the four signing groups on a
"made-in-Kawarthas" approach to protecting and managing the area for future generations. The
Kawartha Highlands Signature Site Act introduced in the legislature by Premier Ernie Eves reflects
the key directions in the charter.
Highlights of Proposed Legislation
Major provisions in both the charter and the legislation include the following:
The ecological integrity of the park would be the overriding priority in its management and
Traditional uses such as hiking, canoeing, birdwatching, hunting, fishing and trapping would
be permitted.
Mining and aggregate extraction, forest harvesting and commercial power development
Premier Ernie Eves' Web site - News Backgrounder
1 of 2 06/17/2003 3:37 PM
Home > English > Speeches : Statement to the Legislative Assembly Tuesday, June 17, 2003
Statement to the Legi sl ati ve Assembl y
Notes for remarks by
Ernie Eves,
Ontario's Premier
Queen's Park, Ontario
June 17, 2003
Mr. Speaker,
It gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak about a very important piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, Ontario is known around the world for its extraordinary natural environment and
I believe that each generation of Ontarians has an obligation to protect our precious natural
assets -- so they can be passed on to the generations to come.
In 1999, our government embarked upon the largest expansion of parks and protected areas ever
with the launch of Ontario's Living Legacy.
Ontario's Living Legacy is creating 378 new parks and protected areas.
In addition, Ontario's Living Legacy identified nine Signature Sites because they exemplify
Ontario's unique natural heritage.
One of these sites, Mr. Speaker, is the Kawartha Highlands. Today, I am pleased to announce that
we are keeping the promise we made in this year's Speech from the Throne by introducing
legislation to protect the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site.
This bill is the culmination of extensive public consultation over the past four years and it builds
on the valuable work done by the Kawartha Highlands Local Stakeholders Committee.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague, Chris Hodgson, the MPP for
Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, who has worked hard to create a "made-in-Kawarthas" solution to
protecting and managing the area for future generations.
Thank you, Chris.
Four key stakeholder organizations have also worked hard to create a made-in-Kawarthas solution
and have signed a charter outlining a shared vision for the future of this unique natural
As recommended by these organizations, our government will establish the Kawartha Highlands
Signature Site as an operating provincial park.
This bill, if passed, would set the ground rules for the planning and management of the park
based on the directions in the stakeholder charter.
Premier Ernie Eves' Web site - Statement to the Legislative Assembly
1 of 2 06/17/2003 3:38 PM