this page lists submissions received to date
Lydia Dobbin an owner on Anstruther lake
Long Lake, Loucks Lake and Area Cottage Owners Association (LLCA)
Ivan Battye and Ann Kidd Catchacoma lake
January 9, 2003.
Dan Marinigh, Manager, Land Use Coordination Section,
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,
300 Water Street, P.O. Box 7000,
As a cottage owner on Anstruther Lake since 1958 I am very concerned with the designation of the area within the Kawartha Highland Signature Site which with bill #239 establishes the area as a Recreation Reserve.
Upon reading the short description of the bill, I was in a position to be supportive of this bill with some amendment, but after reading an email and speaking personally with Julia Bryan in Chris Hodgsonís office, I am dismayed. I feel that we who have water access on all of the lakes in the designated area have been put in a situation of oblivion. Under the General Use Land designation many cottagers were able to construct roads through Crown Land to access their cottages and those that presently do not have road access according to Ms. Bryan, "This does not allow for roads etc that Jim is proposing and never will", leaves water access only cottage owners with no means of access to their properties.
I would like to draw your attention to what is happening and may happen in the future on Anstruther Lake and possibly on other populated lakes in the designated area. We have two marinas, one of which the North Kawartha Council has approved for Condominiums and the remaining one is presently an operational marina that is currently up for sale. With the pending demolition of The Landing and subsequent construction of the condominiums, there will be a displacement of approximately 70 (less the proposed 25 that may have dockage and parking) for cottage owners with water access. Anstruther Marina is in the process of expanding the facility with the capability of serving approximately 30 boats and parking. Unfortunately, that still leaves approximately 25 to 30 without dockage and parking. The public landing has no dock and very little parking available. I realize we can always park on the Township road but what do we do with the boat, our only means of access to our cottage?
In the foreseeable future with the approval by North Kawartha Council for the condominium development and since there are no guarantees that the existing marina will always remain an operational marina, the situation can only get worse and it will leave ALL water access owners with a "cottage on a plot of land, adjacent to a park" with no means of access. I believe that a General Use designation, which allows for roads to be built, surrounding the populated lakes should be implemented or incorporated in the plans so that all water access cottages would have the opportunity for future roads within the proposed Recreation Reserve/Park.
Ms. Bryan says: "this new legislation actually takes all of the LSCís recommendations and enshrines them in legislation". These recommendations of the LSC are dated November 2001 which we received in October 2002 during which time much discussion occurred and obviously was an effort in futility.
Many knowledgeable people have put forth very constructive suggestions that were totally ignored by the LSC and hopefully these recommendations will be looked at to incorporate a well balanced Recreation Reserve and preserve the rights of individuals who own cottages in this entire area.
Accessibility by road to present water access cottages would not only solve their dilemma but would also help to improve the environment and would significantly curtail water pollution.
Yours very truly,
Re: EBR # AB02E4002
January 24, 2003
On behalf of the Long Lake, Loucks Lake and Area Cottage Owners Association (LLCA) I am writing today in support of the new Recreation Reserve Act, 2002 legislation.
Our community began in the late 1800s, long before the concept of a cottage was dreamt of on these lakes and well over 100 years before the concept of a Kawartha Highlands Signature Site came into being. Local people used rowboats to access the area and built simple camps from which to hunt, fish and trap. Local forestry interests also logged the area in those early days.
Today remote environmentalists claim the area is pristine and unique and must be protected as a park to limit the impact of man. Apparently they donít realize the pristine wilderness has been under the stewardship of local stakeholders for about six generations making such stewardship a traditional activity under the Local Stakeholder Committee (LSC) measure of sixty years.
These days our organization is frankly proud of the work we have been doing to manage the Long Lake Access Point. As you know the creation of this access point in the 1960s by the MNR opened up the area for the first time to recreational canoe camping. (Which means that recreational canoe camping is not a traditional activity by LSC standards!) In the early 1980s funding ran out for the maintenance of the access point and the LLCA took it over (under a land use permit) and has operated it since 1985.
In the last few years our association conducted an inventory and analysis of the local campsites. We then quietly began to upgrade and provide basic maintenance to the sites through an adopt-a-campsite program and the efforts of Junior Stewardship Rangers from Bancroft and Peterborough.
We shared some of this information with the LSC through various submissions. The MNR, to their credit, responded with the installation of pit privies on many campsites. Unfortunately this was done without consulting our association and the result was that a significant number of privies were positioned inappropriately close to the lakes, run off and even portages.
During the summer of 2002 our association conducted a survey of canoe
campers using the Long Lake Access Point to measure their awareness of
the signature site process, support for the park concept and satisfaction
with the status quo. We have included the complete survey as part of this
EBR submission but the highlights include:
-58% of the total 120 respondents were aware of the signature siteprocess.
-91.2% of the respondents who knew of the signature site process were against a provincial park designation.
-93.3% of the respondents who did not previously know of the signature site process were against a provincial park designation.
A wide range of their comments are included with our survey results.
Comments were supportive of the LLCA efforts, condition of the access point, portages and campsites. Respondents also appreciated the lack of a reservation system, freedom of movement and low cost of camping.
We strongly believe that the high environmental and recreational values still associated with our portion of the KHSS can be attributed to strong local stakeholder participation and support of wise use conservation principles.
We strongly believe that the proper implementation of the new Recreation Reserve legislation can enshrine and improve these same environmental and recreational values.
We strongly encourage the Minister to incorporate local stakeholder participation in the management of the Kawartha Highlands Recreation Reserve.
We respectfully request that the Ministry consult with the Stakeholder Groups of the Kawartha Highlands, being the leading representative of a very diverse group of local stakeholders, during the development of the new recreation reserve legislation.
Copy: Minister MNR Jerry Ouellette
MPP Chris Hodgson
MPP Gary Stewart
Galway-Cavendish and Harvey Council
Re: EBR # AB02E4002
January 26th, 2003
Dear Mr. Marinigh:
Re: Bill 239 KHRR
We write further to our letters of September 30th, 2002 and Oct 30th,
Re: Kawartha Highlands Signature Site posted to EBR # PB00E3003
We would like to give our "qualified" support to Bill 239.
We are Ann Kidd and Ivan Battye and we jointly own a cottage on Catchacoma Lake between Bottle Creek and Beaver Lake Narrows. This cottage is part of a series of family properties that Pat Battye, our mother, bought as Crown Land in 1948. Those lands were sold with a development agreement. The objective was that these properties would provide a tax base and infrastructure revenue for the area for the future. That objective has been realized.
Our familyís commitment to the area is long and intimate. It predates all roads except the 507. We spent the summers there as children when there were no cottages on the back lakes and canoed Anstruther when there was only a hunting cabin. Mum has been on all the lakes in our system, which are accessible by water. Our family does most of the construction and maintenance. The properties have no value, as they are considered transient to the individual (i.e. they came "freely") and are passed likewise to the next generation. The properties are the family compounds, the places where the family gathers, and contain the collective memories of the group. Ours will shortly see itsí 4th generation --- the 1st are headstoned on site. Our experience is the norm to the area. It is not unique. We have known most of our neighbors since childhood
We have watched with interest some of the comments being put forward
regarding Bill 239. Many who support a "Park", would deny the local
ownership, question the stewardship and shout "NIMBY". We say, "not
We commend the Ministryís initiatives to protect some of our diminishing Canadian wilderness and to preserve it for the public for the future. This is an important initiative, especially for those who have little opportunity to enjoy what we are so fortunate to own.
Like any property owner, large or small, we wish our neighbors to be
conscientious, good stewards of the area in general and not diminish our
enjoyment of our own space. The Ministry has been our neighbor for
some 15 plus years as custodian and owner of the Kawartha Highlands Provincial
MNR --- Parks have not been a good partner to the area.
You now propose to expand their/the area of "control". We can spend a great deal of time discussing terms and their meanings. You can call the area "Park", "Reserve", or "Banana Split" for all we care. Perhaps we should use the term "understand". The designation words of "control" are similarly meaningless, if meaningless is the correct term, for the devil is in the details and Bill 239 gives no details.
Clarification must come in the bill, or from the Minister.
With regard to "PARK", the LSC and Ms. Tanner, it would appear that proposal is gone. That is a good thing. Please see the quote following from April 2001:
(To Ed) Laszlo Bhuasz, Travel Writer, Globe and Mail.KHPP is clear evidence of "PARK" does not mean "MANAGEMENT". An unmanaged park is an oxymoron and a free for all. There is no management plan, potential for one is minimal and there is no money. Anything else is "pie in the sky". Ms. Tanner had to have known that from the beginning. Why she allowed people to get these grandiose ideas is interesting to speculate upon!
(From Paul Eagles, Prof. Park Planning, University of Waterloo)
His comment, provided below, is in response to an article that Buhasz wrote for the Globe and Mail. Ed)
"With the increase in camping demand, Ontario Provincial Parks need more campsites. Of the 272 parks existing before Lands for Life, only 107 were operating, that is had staff or facilities. Of the new parks and conservation reserves being created now after Lands for Life none have staff or facilities and none are planned. Ontario is going to create hundreds of new parks without any new staff or recreation facilities. This will take Ontario to one of the lowest park to staff ratios in the world, under .5 staff per park." (Quoted with permission)
Nevertheless, this concept has backing, and must be dealt with in the Bill --- but surly not by Ms Tanner and company.
As for other pro "PARK" interests, see quote below
"Julia Bryan" <Julia.Bryan@MAH.GOV.ON.CA> on 12/16/2002 04:28:41 PMThis indicates there is a clear divergence of opinion within government. Everything we have seen and heard leads us to believe that this divergence of opinion also exists within the MNR. We have worked in government and understand that an increased budget means more staff and job security.
Subject: Re: Kawartha Highlands Recreation Reserve
What Jim Whelan etc do not realize is that this new legislation actually takes all of the LSC's recommendations and enshrines them in legislation, just as they suggested in the draft rec's. The only difference is what it is called, unfortunately we were not able to enshrine the rec's in the current parks act as the committee thought and therefore this new designation allows us to do what we need to do in protection and preserving the land - it simply has a new name. An operating park would allow for revenue and so does this designation.
Chris has been informed of the new designation and we believe that it does serve exactly what we needed and more for the protection of this land, taking into account all of the LSC's hard work. This does not allow for roads etc that Jim is proposing and never will, I think they're just trying to save face by accepting this and using the fact of the new name to assist their cause.
I hope this information is helpful to you.
Julia Bryan for Chris Hodgson, MPP"
Cost --- This is the issue --- "Donít buy what you canít eat!"
If the events of the last 5 years are understood correctly, then it seems that government wishes to put aside an area for the future. The term "Reserve" is a good term but it needs to be more clearly defined. The approach has been "ham fisted".
We would have expected more of a planning document approach, projecting out a number of years into the future, with a board or group set up of government and local persons to oversee development. Then the government would eventually table a site plan, after an extensive ground study. Development of local infrastructure should be allowed to continue uninterrupted with the gradually increasing supervision of this development as the master plan becomes more focused. The process here would be akin to community planning.
We remind you that much --- if not all --- of the access to this area,
has been developed, built and paid for by the local residents. MNR-Parks
brings little to this planning partnership at this time. Itsí plans load
the infrastructure and provide no revenue for it. It offers environmental
protection, but the protection we need is from the Ministry itself and
the people who use the land free of charge, the non residential "camping"
Clarification must come in the Bill, or from the Minister
Then, in the years to come, when the MNR, would manage to release some funds, we suggest a priority to undertake some protection and control of Bottle and Sucker Lakes. If later, additional funds are available, you could possibly undertake to build a Catchacoma Lake bypass road off 507, across the north directly into the park. Presumably, by that time, some of the other interests may have already constructed the road for you, thus reducing the financial obligations of your Ministry. In the future, all our visions of a properly managed park/s can come together. This approach costs little, risks nothing and saves everything. This is a measured response with the potential of the least amount of damage. This is the less expensive and more practical approach. To take over large tracks of land with no meaningful plan at this time, we believe, is ludicrous.
Concurrent to this approach, we strongly urge the MNR to eliminate all advertising with regard to this area referring to "PARK", until such time as it has cleaned up and regained control of that which it currently has.
You should note that on these issues the Catchacoma Cottagers Association, (CCA), of which we are members, does not speak for us. They have taken a view that does not represent the majority.view of the property owners that abut the proposed area. We view the KHPP more intimately while enroute to our cottage and they have not seen what we see, - - yet.
Details on our proposals for the area are demonstrated on the website: http://www.osha.igs.net/~kiddbatt/DOCS/park/park1.htm
Ivan R.S.Battye Ann C. Kidd
100 Muir Crescent, Whitby, Ontario, L1P 1B6
(Ph) 905-665-1534 (Fax) 905-665-1536 (Email) email@example.com
Galway-Cavendish and Harvey Council