return to park index

This page is so you may know what the other guys are saying and doing
nancy jack Dec 20
Robert Pratten Jan 19

Copy of email from Nancy Jack and Robert Walsh
Reformatted to improve readability - but wording not changed. ed comments in red

----- Original Message -----
From: <>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 3:09 PM
Subject: KHSS - Comments on the Proposed Recreation Reserve

From Nancy Jack:

Merry Christmas everyone!

The new proposed legislation making the KHSS a "Recreation Reserve" does contain an important protection for cottagers:  restrictions against the sale of Crown Land and some retrictions on commercial development. (However, the restrictions on commercial development are not as strong as if the area were made a Provincial Park.)

 Apart from that good news, there are some very important questions still to be answered.  Potential answers to these questions could truly be cottagers' "worst nightmare".  More than ever we need to pin down the government on these points and work to make sure that the government's proposed legislation does not work to our detriment.

Many people have worried that a Provincial Park would lead to the area being overrun with visitors.  Under the proposed Recreation Reserve, not only would backwoods users come to the area (without the protection of campsite booking or enforcement, such as in operating Provincial Parks), but the door is wide also open for significant numbers of day-users doing more invasive activities.  Under a Recreation Reserve, does the government see greatly increasing the number and type of day users as a revenue generator?  Our worst nightmare would be to see Anstruther Lake advertised as a playground for day-users with PWCs, ATVs and speedboats, and to see picnic grounds, public facilities, parking lots and more public boat launching points for day-users.

If you wish to express enthusiasm for the new draft legislaton, I hope that ALCA and cottagers will also push on the following points:
-  we need a capacity study to determine the number of day-users with ATVs, speedboats, and PWCs the area can bear from both an ecological and public safety perspective.  Quotas on the numbers of these visitors need to be set accordingly, as well as horsepower and boat size limits for day-visitors.
- we need a capacity study to determine the amount of additional hunting and fishing the area can bear, and, in the case of hunting, the number of people who can safely hunt in the area. studies are done
- there needs to be a gate so there can be enforcement of quotas for day-visitors. where and how many and manned by whom
- camp site booking for backwoods campers needs to be implemented as it would have been if the area were a Provincial Park. See KHPP
- so far we have been spared from zebra mussels.  The management plan needs to address how to prevent zebra mussels from being introduced by visiting boaters. long gone issue
- we need a management plan, just as we would have if the area were an operating Provincial Park. Dream on

By the way, people who want a road on the North side of the Lake are still not going to get one under the new proposal.  We received an email from an aide to Chris Hodgson that said: "This does not allow for roads and never will."  We encourage you to check for yourselves with the MNR. see . who's friend are you anyway nancy

[replies should  be sent to]

Ed Comment : As we have said, and the existing KHPP is clear evidence of,  PARK DOES NOT MEAN MANAGEMENT.  An unmanaged park is, an oxymoron and a free for all. There will be no management plan, there will not be one, there is no money. Anything else is pie in the sky. Ms. Tanner had to have known that from the beginning and why she allowed people to get these grandiose ideas is interesting to speculate upon.

Subject: Gary Faulkner to Robert Pratten Reply #1  Catchacoma version
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 12:14:30 -0500

... Robert Pratten.  He is a cottager on Anstruther Lake, and appears to be a close affiliate of Robert Walsh, a very public proponent of a Provincial Park designation. .... information being distributed by Mr.Walsh to promote his views  Mr. Walsh was distributing false and misleading information,
some of it concerning NE Catchacoma which could have been derived, directly or indirectly, from misleading information distributed Wendy Lyttle, CCA President.

Mr. Pratten's message has been delivered to a large number of persons in North Kawartha along with my first reply to it.

Check out the websites he refers you to. Mr. Pratten and the organizations he refers to are supporting the "park designation" using much hyperbole and, in many instances, absolutely false information concerning Bill 239 and the KHSS / KHRR area.  Most of the environmental groups supporting the LSC and the "park designation", to the extent they have any site specific knowledge whatsoever, are relying on "local sources" such as Mr. Walsh and the LSC, who have provided inaccurate, and in some cases absolutely false, information concerning the KHSS / KHRR area.

Janice Griffith, whose memo we discussed hearin, is another example of a person providing false information regarding KHSS / KHRR matters.  The President of the CCA recommended MS. Griffith's memo to the SGKH on January 8th, 2003.  Ms. Lyttle is now aware of the false information in Ms. Griffith's memo, and we hope she will make a retraction of that recommendation.



From: Robert Pratten []
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 7:21 PM
Subject: Fw: Time running out for Kawartha Highlands

Subject: Time running out for Kawartha Highlands

Time running out for Kawartha Highlands Action Alert -- 096
Thursday January 16, 2003


Ontario's Minister of Natural Resources, Jerry Ouellette, has introduced legislation that would allow the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site, north of Peterborough, to become an off-highway vehicle playground , rather than a protected area (F). This legislation, if passed, could set a dangerous precedent
for many of Ontario's hundreds of provincial parks. Take action to protect Ontario's parks by visiting


The deadline for public comments on the Minister of Natural Resources proposed new Recreation Reserve legislation is fast approaching.  This legislation, if passed, would be a disaster for our parks system.  Instead of protected areas, we would have motorized recreational playgrounds designed for ATVs, snowmobiles, personal watercraft (''Seadoos'') and associated commercial developments.  Minister Jerry Ouellette has also  already stated that the Act could be used to introduce logging and ''game management'' (artificially increasing populations of animals like deer for hunting) in areas that were slated for protection.

Minister Ouellette wants to start by applying this appalling legislation to the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site, one of the last largely wild areas
south of Algonquin Park and an area previously recommended for full provincial park status.  Once the Kawartha precedent has been set, the legislation could be extended to other Signature Sites, including the Algoma Highlands, Killarney, Woodland Caribou and the Spanish River Valley or to any of the approximately 200 Ontario's Living Legacy sites still awaiting official regulation.  Instead of a growing parks and protected areas system, we would have the exact opposite - a huge increase in damage to wildlife habitat and ecosystems in areas that the government had promised to protect. Take Action

It is urgent that we send a strong message that this legislation must be immediately withdrawn.  You can take fast, effective action by visiting

For more information on why the Recreation Reserves legislation should be withdrawn, visit

ed: these sites (we have linked them for your edification) and some others like it, have on them "1-click canned letters" their customers can use to FAX to the premier and the MNR environmental registry - they have received letters from Australia!!!  - - Get real eh!!)( We also note these sites say they are non profit BUT 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!!

Donate: Take the next step in your effort to protectwildlands and wildlife.Use's secure on-line donation form, or find
mailinginformation at

Please forward this message to your friends. For more information, or if this has been forwarded to you and you would like to sign up.

Subject: Gary Faulkner to Robert Pratten #1

Hello Mr. Pratten,

At the outset I wish to let you know that I believe Bill 239 is not perfect - it requires amendments.  However, I also believe that it is the best basis for a "win-win" solution to Kawartha Highlands problems that has been presented so far, and it is far superior to the recommendations of the LSC.

Thank you for arranging for me to (indirectly) receive your references to the and websites.  I recommend the pictorial tour on the wild.canada site - great photos!

But, I am puzzled.  I get the impression that you are supporting the recommendations of the LSC to designate the entire KHSS as a Provincial Park - am I correct?  Do you have a cottage on Anstruther Lake, and have you been opposed to buffer zones between private properties and lands to be designated as a provincial park?  Wouldn't you agree that if the land behind and beside your cottage, and the lake in front of it and the land under the lake is in a park; then for all practical purposes your cottage is "in a park"?  I think you must answer yes.

Now the wild.canada website offers us the following wise comment under Image #6 of the pictorial tour - "Cottage developments do not belong in parks."  We suppose that they mean cottage development should not be permitted in existing parks.  However, wouldn't this also imply that parks should not be superimposed on top of significant existing cottage developments?

On the same website we notice that they show a photograph of a logging road as Image #12. I  had to look twice, it looks the same as the roads MANAGED BY PARKS ONTARIO that access Bottle and Sucker Lakes.  Check out the photos on the Pookhs'website at . that us at this link

This site is not as fancy as the ones you have referred us to, and it omits the hyperbole and pontifications.  ..

Please see the comments from Prof. Paul Eagles  regarding how newly created parks are likely to be managed.  Read the letter from the Field family to see how the KHPP is currently being managed. Read the brief background concerning planning events related to the KHPP for the past forty years.    Consider the possibility that there are problems that the LSC has not addressed and which its naive one size fits all proposal does not solve.

Consider how useful the utilization zone concept provided for in bill 239 might be if we could negotiate the right to provide input to the management of these zones.  You may wish to review the concept of modified management areas provided for in the district land use guidelines.  They were recommended by the great lakes St. Lawrence round table in February 1998 as an alterative to park and / or conservation reserve designations for the protection of sensitive areas.
This concept was not considered by the lsc, although I believe that it could have been. The utilization zone concept could be similar to the modified management area concept and could be used to enhance the prospect of a win-win solution being found.