The enclosed is a proposed list of questions for Tues, Oct 22, 12:30 PM, meeting at Wilson Park Community Center.

PROPOSED QUESTIONS FOR THE M.N.R.

The O.L.L.L.S.C. Recommendation Report states "a co-stewardship management model with equal decision making powers with M.N.R. officials" (Ontario Parks officials)

The M.N.R. has walked away from managing the canoe loop campsites and managing the present Kawartha Highlands Provincial Park due to budget restrictions. Also, 15 of the current 105 operation parks are scheduled to become non-operating unless suitable partners can be found or other cost saving measures are implemented.

The Meteek report commissioned by the M.N.R. clearly indicates that the KHSS is currently close to its maximum sustainable level and is an unsuitable Provincial Park candidate.

The K.H.S.S. differs significantly from any traditional Park:

• It has a population of over 2000 landowners (MNR figures) and recreational camp leases.
• Some interior lakes are heavily populated.
• It is surrounded by numerous highway accesses: 507N&S, 36,28N&S, 620,504 and Northeys Bay Rd. plus all the Township roads which meet these highways. It is also surrounded by a large number of private properties and,
• There are numerous interior roads (many of which are private) and access points that are either public, commercial, private or informal which makes it almost impossible to manage the area as an operational provincial park.

If designated a Park, traditional activities could be restricted or stopped by pressure groups such as the Sierra Club, Wildlands League, Peaceful Parks etc. The 1997 interim draft management plan for the present KHPP prepared by park staff stated that trapping will be phased out by 2010.

The KHSS recommendation report stated that "many of our recommendations were based on the premise of zoning areas from high levels of activity to minimal disturbance in any environmentally sensitive areas."

"On Saturday October 12th 2002, at the Cavendish hall during the lake association meeting the following statement was made by the MNR. "If the corridor or buffer zone is left as general use Crown land there could be subdivisions, industry or condominiums built".

In fact, further development on general use Crown land can be restricted by a number of things including:

*The public lands act through legislation as found in Conservation Reserves

*Partnerships between municipalities as developed in Twp of North Kawartha on Northeys Bay Rd and the Frontenac model.

*By the Ministry of the Environment's memo to the MNR in the early 1990s directing the

MNR to restrict further development on cold water lakes. As a result of that memo MNR stopped the sale of 66’ shoreline road allowances on those lakes, until protection procedures were put in place by the Township by-laws.

*By the Minister of Municipal Affairs as in the case of the Oak Ridges Moraine.

For the past year, there has been no representation on the OLLLSC from cottagers, permanent residents, commercial operators or the Twp of Cavendish/Galway and Harvey. Since the beginning of the process in July 2000 there has been no opportunity for open dialogue with the public and information has been withheld from the public.

As reported in the Toronto Star the previous Minister of Natural Resources, John Snobelen worked with conservationists, environmentalists and the pulp and paper business to establish 2.1 million hectares of new parkland (protected area) in Ontario under a program known as Lands For Life. This resulted in an agreement that there would be no logging for profit in the KHSS, yet approximately 75% of Algonquin Park is logged. (Peterboro Examiner May 16^th 2002)

The original Burleigh Anstruther Chandos Local Stakeholders Group carried out a great deal of research with the support of the Bancroft MNR forestry department. The presentation to the Round Table clearly stated that selective logging on winter skid roads was mandatory in order to protect certain parts of the site from disease and fire and assist in wildlife management. Our statement was based mainly on the advice provided by the MNR Forestry Dept.

The 1999 Land Use Strategy states "Although there are areas warranting acquisition in all parts of the planning area, the highest priority is assigned to land acquisition in the southern portion of the planning area, as well as areas to the south. Since more of the land here is privately owned, there is a greater need for acquisition due to existing and future land use pressures" 1999 Land Use Strategy 6.1.7 Page 17.

This Land Use Strategy is the result of a cabinet approved legislation. It is also stated in the policy clarifications (page 2) "All patented private lands including cottages within regulated provincial park boundaries will be acquired from willing sellers as funds permit."

A recent summary of those opposed to the recommendations of the OLL report clearly indicate that the vast majority of stakeholder groups of KHSS are opposed to the recommended designation of an Operational Provincial Park for the KHSS. These include: representative groups of the more than 2,000 landowners, anglers and hunters, trappers, loggers, canoers and campers, Twp of CG&H, and affected ratepayers of NK Twp. The OLL recommendation report states that "an individual submission was just as important to us as a group submission or petition"

If designated a Provincial Park:

• Populated lakes will be totally encompassed in the Park
• Private cottage roads will become Park roads
• Water access cottages on populated lakes will not be allowed to consider road access
• Populated lakes will begin with a restriction of no PWC (Personal
  Water Craft) and will continually be open to pressure groups wanting further restrictions
• Landowners and visitors will be restricted in their freedom of movement requiring various permits and as the OLLLSC Rec. Report states "With respect to the use of the protected area for recreational purposes , private property owners and their guests will be subject to the same rules and fees as any member of the public"

According to extremely reliable sources such as Environment Canada and the Air Resource Management Control Board of California, boats cause much more hydrocarbon pollution per kilometre traveled than automobiles. Based on reliable scientific evidence, and assuming that pollution control devices that will not be available for years are already installed, it can be argued that a single water-access cottage causes at least as much hydrocarbon pollution to be generated, for access purposes only, as forty road-access cottages.

This means that the (approximately) 200 water-access properties in the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site, that could have roads but currently do not, generate as much hydrocarbon pollution as 8000 road access properties.

49] http://www.ec.gc.ca/science/sandemay00/article1_e.html (reference)

The land use designation and the actual method of management are directly related to each other. It is obvious that the final designation can not be decided until a sustainable management plan is developed. The Recommendations Report chooses not to use new legislation under the Public Lands Act as it relies heavily on the posting of signs throughout the area.

If the KHSS needs to be protected how will the MNR regulate the number of people attracted by the extensive advertising it does for provincial parks? And why advertise it in such away in the first place if it will INCREASE the very pressure you are supposed to be protecting it from? .

What guarantee is in place for the 2000 cottage owners and recreation camp lease-holders that the many problems with the existing Kawartha Highlands Provincial Park will not happen with the KHSS? Please quote the written guarantee.

Presentation to North Kawartha Council August 13^th, 2002

Good Morning, Reeve Tanner and Members of Council.

I am here as the president of the Looncall Lake Cottagers’ Association, and more particularly as the co-chair of NORKLA. Greg Herring, president of the Jack’s Lake Cottagers’ Association is also co-chair, but today he sends his regrets. There is a representative here of the JLCA, as well as most of the other member lakes of NORKLA.

Frustration with the KHSS process is evident in the recent LSC newsletter, and is especially demonstrated by MPP Gary Stewart’s comments in last Friday’s Peterborough Examiner, "It has gone on for too long (referring to the KHSS process) and property owners have the right to know the way it is going to go so they can react". We share this frustration.

We are here to bring to Council’s attention, without bias, several deficiencies regarding the KHSS process from the point of view of reasonable, concerned ratepayers and property owners. We ask that, as our elected representatives, you carry our message to the LSC and the Minister of Natural Resources, his Parliamentary Assistant, MPP Gary Stewart and Minister Chris Hodgson.

First, note that currently the EBR Registry states: ‘As both the protected area designation and boundary recommendations have now been achieved the proposal is now more accurately described as "Land use planning for the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site."’ In this sentence the Local Stakeholders Committee is telling us that, in its opinion, Phase 2 is complete, and presumes that the management phase has commenced.

However, further on the same EBR posting it states the final Phase 2 recommendations "will be published on the website … once the Minister’s response has been finalized." The results are not on the website. This clearly indicates that Phase 2 is not complete. Phase 2 can not be complete until the Minister has announced to the public all details of the designations for the KHSS, plus all details of boundary adjustments or buffer zones, and provides sufficient time for public meetings with dialogue.

There is no logical or practical basis for the LSC to solicit input from the public regarding Phase 3 until Phase 2 has been formally completed by publication of Ministerial approval of Phase 2.

On the EBR Registry it states: "PHASE THREE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE: "The LSC is providing a new opportunity for public involvement in Phase 3 of their mandate. The details of this opportunity to participate have been described in the LSC Newsletter of July 2002."

In the LSC mandate for Phase 3 it states: "Time requirement: 8-10 months; consultation to be completed before August 31, 2002." Only one of these conditions has been upheld.

What the MNR is saying on the website and what the LSC is saying in its current newsletter is that the consultation period has been slashed from 8 to 10 months to 38 days, with no allowance for public meetings. Moreover, this consultation has been reduced to requesting affected persons to answer a series of questions on managing an entity that has not been defined and of which we have no knowledge. That is, the designation and boundaries have not been finalized or publicized. To complete the questionnaire is to enter the realm of fantasy and speculation.

Although the Government has caused the delay in finalizing Phase 2, this does not change the need for 10 months of public meetings and input after Phase 2 is finalized, so that people discussing the Minister’s response and making management recommendations have some knowledge of the facts.

The EBR Registry also states the submission deadline is August 22, 2002, and "All comments will be considered as part of the decision-making by the Ministry if they: reference the EBR Registry Number". This is a condition of acceptance.

We have these rhetorical questions.

• Why did the recent LSC Newsletter, as indeed all previous LSC Newsletters, neglect to point out the importance of placing the EBR Registry number on submissions?
• Why did the very important EBR Number not appear in the Newsletter?
• Why did the Ministry’s EBR posting provide a different deadline date than the newsletter?

These omissions and discrepancies jeopardize our opportunity to exercise our democratic voice.

The LSC’s Mandate for Phase 2 states: "Review, consider options and provide recommendations for refinement and finalization of the protected area boundary, taking into account protection needs and implications on adjacent private property and existing land uses."

The Draft Recommendations of the LSC of August 2001 do not specifically mention adjacent property except to state (incorrectly in our opinion) that private property will not be affected by being surrounded by Crown Land designated as a Provincial Park.

The mandate for the LSC also states: "It is important to note that a different composition than that of the initial LSC may be desirable (for Phase 3)".

Given the gross imbalance in representation between the two townships involved, and with no representation from KHSS landowners, we feel strongly that this aspect of the LSC’s mandate should have been corrected long ago - and definitely must be corrected before the commencement of Phase 3.

The Mandate of the LSC also states that it "Must allow for due consideration by all affected parties."

Very clearly the LSC was in violation this provision when it could not release its final Recommendations to KHSS landowners, and the agencies representing them, in Oct. 2001, despite many written requests to do so.

To amplify the points above, please note the following. Written records we have available demonstrate the vast majority of the affected parties and adjacent landowners reject the recommendations of the LSC. These persons are not in favor of the Park Designation abutting private property and all have requested a corridor of General Use Crown Land separating all private properties in the KHSS from any land designated to be a Provincial Park. A few of the individuals and agencies (who are participants on the SGKH) that have made such requests are listed below.

Very notably, the North Kawartha Council also withdrew their support of the LSC recommendations on Nov. 6^th, 2001, and also requested a corridor of General Use Crown Land around all inhabited Lakes in North Kawartha Township, which would separate private properties from a Park designation.

A recent analysis of over ninety submissions to the LSC and MPPs concerning KHSS matters reveals that: all but two of the authors were opposed to a Park designation adjacent to private property; and they also requested General Use corridors separating private property from a Provincial Park. These ninety submissions included written evidence from all but one group representing property owners in the KHSS area. Not even one of these groups continues to support the LSC’s recommendations of last August.

Reeve Tanner and Council we are asking you and imploring you, as our elected representatives to, stand with your constituents and advise the LSC and Minister Ouellette that the mandate of the LSC has not been properly fulfilled. Please also advise the Minister that a restructured LSC is essential and that it will need an additional ten months to complete Phase 3, commencing when Phase 2 is formally completed by the appropriate Ministerial announcement to the public regarding designations and boundaries. This is absolutely necessary if the affected public is to have a reasonable opportunity to provide input. It is especially true for many seasonal residents who will be leaving the area shortly and who are 70% of the affected tax base.

We request that Council for North Kawartha immediately request Minister Ouellette and / or the KHSS Local Stakeholders’ Committee to take the following actions.

Reeve Tanner and Council, we will present our position to MPP Stewart and Ministers Hodgson and Ouellette. We expect you will give serious consideration to our concerns, and give us your support in your response to the LSC and Minister Ouellette.

Doug Driscoll Greg Herring

Co-Chair Co-Chair

NORKLA NORKLA

Minutes of an Extraordinary Meeting

Held August 10, 2002

At the Golden Pheasant Restaurant

Hwy 28, Apsley

____________________________

Present: Anstruther - Jim Whelan, Reg Lashmar

Chandos - Jim O’Shea

Jack - Greg Herring

Long & Loucks - Peter Chown

Wolf - Dana Dvorak

Guest: - Todd Kearney

1. Call to Order: 11: 50 a.m. by Greg Herring, Chair
2. Motion: Moved Dana Dvorak, seconded by Jim O’Shea: "That Todd Kearney be removed from the meeting, inasmuch as he was not invited to attend by the executive of the Wolf Lake Cottagers Association. Motion Carried. Mr. Kearney left the meeting at 12:07 p.m.
3. Jim Whelan gave copies of a draft presentation to the North Kawartha Council to members for their review. A debate ensued as to the fairness of the questionnaire, included in the LSC News Letter, the make up of the LSC, i.e. both local and GCH Twp representation, and the recent article in the Peterborough Examiner. The Chair reviewed the KHSS News Letter and concluded that the questions asked and the observations made were in conflict and precluded answering the questionnaire. Further, the Chair stated, "We must state our concerns in the ideal situation, what we want and keep saying it, instead of wrangling over what is the issue". Mr. Chown added, "We wish to have a significant number of property owners and politicians to make up a reorganized LSC and conclude Phase II".
4. Upon the arrival of Councilor Paul Addie, the meeting adjourned for luncheon.
5. The meeting reconvened at 1:40 p.m.
6. The debate on the Whelan draft presentation resumed. After discussion and amendments recommended by Dana Dvorak and Jim O'Shea the draft presentation was adopted. The Chair summed up the issues and stated that he would be the final drafter. Co-Chair Doug Driscoll would make the presentation to Council on Tuesday, August 13, 2002.
7. On the motion of Mr. Peter Chown, there being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:28 p.m.

RECOMMENDATION:

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

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

And Whereas the LSC Recommendation Report recommends an Operational Provincial Park

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The intent of these two submissions is to defend the notion that it is not necessary to have a "park designation" for the entire KHSS in order to protect it. And, in particular, it is especially undesirable to have a park designation on Crown Land that is immediately adjacent to private properties.
Read the complete letter here: docs/july15_2002_letter.pdf

Modified Management is an option for certain Crown Land areas that Dana Dvorak refers to in her cover letter for the Wolf Lake ballot as having "no relevance to our situation, according to the MNR." Therefore, it does not appear on our ballot as one of the options.

Also: proposal to solve certain KHSS problems: the environment wins, the LSC / MNR wins, property owners win, the municipalities win, and visitors to the KHSS area win. docs/modifiedmanagement.pdf

And: how some problems associated with canoe routes and campsites in the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site (KHSS) might be solved, fairly quickly and at low cost. docs/outdoorcard.pdf along with the canoe routes and camping sites map docs/canoeroutecamps.pdf

Gary Faulkner's analysis of the political process leading to the Local Stakeholder Committee and its inconsistency with the North Kawartha Council recommendations makes for interesting reading. Perhaps this letter contains the personal attacks that Sissy referred to in her letter to property owners.  docs/political_intrigue.pdf

Gary makes the point that property next to parks will be expropriated eventually by citing previously secret policy implications of the government. docs/private_land_buy-out.pdf

Sissy Tanner refers to a time scale for signature site full aquisition of several generations in her latest letter as chair of the Local Stakeholders Committee.

_________________________________________________________________________

Todd Kearney's collection of e-mail responses:
June 18, 2002 to: (copies to all on the e-mail list)
Leigh Anderson
Dana Dvorak
Robert Pratten
Robert Walsh
________________________________________________________________
Dear Fellow Cottagers, 

My name is Todd Kearney and I am a private property owner on Wolf Lake with my wife and two young children. I am reluctantly sending this email but I believe it is important to clarify some information that is contained in the attached exchange of emails between you. I do not however wish to get involved in an exchange of misinformation. 

Thank you for your time.
_________________________________________________________________
Dear Mr. Walsh, 

As you may recall I emailed you through your website on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 23:49. I have attached the email exchange for your information. The reason why I have done this should become apparent. Our family has been one of the most diligent and outspoken sources of information on Wolf Lake. I have no doubt that in your email where you characterize "However, there are a couple of vocal anti-Park people on her lake who have resorted to scare tactics", that I am the person you are referring to. My email exchange with you should clarify that colorful portrayal. Your insinuation of "scare tactics" I will assume refers to land acquisition. If this is not correct please inform me and I will endeavor to explain. I am not a lawyer and therefore will not interpret the government policy that I am attaching. I will leave that up to the reader. However this is but only one of my many concerns. Also as I'm sure you are aware it is not "her lake", but rather belongs to the many residents of our Province. I give full credit to Ms. Dvorak and the many other hard-working volunteers on Wolf Lake. I have been very critical of Ms. Dvorak in the matter of KHSS, and this is no secret on our lake. Other property owners on Wolf Lake share those concerns. I do not believe that Ms. Dvorak is representing my wishes or the wishes of others objectively. The assertion that "She has carefully researched the facts on the different alternatives and has shared those details with her cottagers." Is, in my opinion absurd. Ms. Dvorak has been a vocal proponent of a "Park" from the earliest stages when the Wolf Lake Cottage Association (WLCA) became involved in this process, when Ms. Dvorak, myself and two or three others prepared our initial submission on behalf of the WLCA to the LSC. I was opposed to being included in a "Park" at that time, as was one other of the "Executive" WLCA members on our lake. The recommendation to support a "PARK" was submitted on behalf of the WLCA. The follow up submission to the LSC recommendations had no input from any of the general members as no "call" for input was solicited. Again, in my opinion which is shared by others in our membership, (there are Wolf Lake Property owners who will not join the WLCA as they feel the group is to radical in its views), your assertion that "I don't believe any cottage association in the area has disseminated as much info about KHSS to cottagers as Dana has." is laughable. The little information Ms. Dvorak has provided lacks objectivity, even politically driven and in several cases may be considered incorrect. I have no doubt that in Ms Dvorak's personal view, she believes a Park is the best alternative. I respect that decision. My concern has been with what Wolf Lake property owners think, all 65 or so of them and who is representing them or purporting to. Let me also state WLCA or Wolf Lake Property Owners have NOT voted on this issue. "They have overwhelmingly voted to support the Park.". The use of "overwhelmingly" in this instance is very colorful. The closest the WLCA has come is a terribly written, leading, questionnaire, AFTER the LSC submissions. It was actually in the WLCA Spring 2002 Newsletter, likely after repeated requests by others and myself. At best it can be described as a choice between a "Park" and a proposal outside the Provincial Government options. I have called for a vote on the issue for some time now and communication between Ms Dvorak and myself has been terminated as initiated my Ms. Dvorak

I would also like to take issue with your comment, "A Park would allow cottagers to use their cottages and the lake in every way they do now, but would ensure a line is drawn for other users" That is not true for myself and I would guess many others in the area. For example I would not be able to snowmobile with my family in the backcountry as I do now. This is but one example of many that I can attest to. 

I also disagree with you assertion that, "Without the benefit of operating Park status, the only way we'll keep the lake from being over-developed and overrun is a massive volunteer force". I believe that there are current policies and policing that can be enacted outside an Operating Provincial Park Designation that can obtain many of our common goals. If you would like to share some of my thoughts on this issue I would encourage you to contact me at you convenience. 

Regards.


________________________________________________________________
Dear Mr. Pratten, 

I agree that it is wise to be kept informed and can relate to you feelings with respect to bias. Ms. Dvorak is claiming to represent myself and even others on Wolf Lake that are not members of the WLCA in a very prejudiced way in my opinion. I believe and respect each individual's right to their own opinion. I believe the reason Ms. Anderson did not attach a copy was due to the wishes of the author. I will address this issue in my reply to Ms. Dvorak. I too have been cottaging in the area for a relatively short period, but am certain I share many similar concerns as you and all cottagers. The questions/discussions should be centered on how we can obtain a goal while keeping all property owners and stakeholders in the area appeased.

I too am suspect of Provincial, Municipal, and Local (Cottage Associations) governments in this process. In my opinion they have all failed me in the very basic need to communicate information. The 'plan' seems to be poorly researched and organized. I can only hope that with the new Minister of Natural Resources and his staff getting up to speed on the situation that corrective actions will be taken. I am encouraged to hear that the MNR will be sending out full information packets to all property owners in the near future and that the MNR is tonight (June 18, 2002) meeting with the Chairperson of the LSC. I would be happy to exchange any thoughts or ideas that may help get this process moving in the right direction. 

Regards.

________________________________________________________________
Dear Ms. Dvorak,

I am of the understanding that the letter you sent to Ms. Anderson was signed as the President of the Wolf Lake Cottage Association. I therefore would request, as a member of the WLCA, a copy please. 

In our discussions of the KHSS in the winter of this year, in and around the middle of APRIL 2002, I made several queries that I have yet to hear you on. 

They are as follows:

i) The current composition of the Executive

ii) How that Executive is structured, appointed and created.

iii) The mandate of the WLCA.

iv) Whether, at the upcoming AGM, Wolf Lake property owners who can not attend be given some ability to cast a vote on items that require such action.

v) The number and names of the participants who drafted the initial WLCA submission to the LSC.

vi) How many property owners on Wolf Lake are represented by the WLCA and its Executive, i.e. how many paid memberships was their last year.

vii) Is this number stated or communicated when making statements, submissions, etc. by the President or Executive of WLCA



In addition I would also like to know:

1.. Is the WLCA incorporated 2.. Does the WLCA have a Constitution, outlining voting procedures, terms, motions, nominations etc

After several requests for an agenda by others and myself for the upcoming annual general meeting I am delighted to see that I received one via email recently. I am also encouraged that you have moved the meeting to a more suitable location as per the Corbett's suggestion. I was disappointed however to read the decision you made on proxy's for this meeting as it surrounds such an important issue for all Wolf Lake property owners. Those that are unable to attend this meeting will have no way of making their voice heard in the decision on the KHSS via the WLCA.

I am also encouraged to see that we will have a thorough discussion of the issues and solutions surrounding the KHSS at our upcoming meeting. I see that the LSC chairperson, Ms. Tanner will be in attendance. Given that the LSC is recommending a Park designation, will there be any alternative positions being discussed as you stated. I would suggest that you invite Mr. Gary Faulkner, while his motives may appear to be clear, I have found him to be an "expert" on this process and his commitment to finding and presenting alternative solutions noteworthy. 

As you are unsure of what the WLCA association wants you to do, I would suggest that you rescind the support of the LSC's recommendations from the WLCA until such time as a clear mandate in this issue is obtained. 

Regards.

________________________________________________________________
Ms. Anderson,

I share many of your concerns and hope that more people get involved in this process so that a solution that benefits everyone can be achieved. 

Regards.

Kearney Family

Todd, Susan, Rachel and Zachary

The Kawartha Highlands Signature Site - Proposed by some Property Owners Of the Kawartha Highlands (POOKHs)

docs/map_1_proposed.pdf

docs/faulkner_letter_to_minister.pdf

docs/council_response_to_lsc.pdf

docs/council_revised_sept22_response.pdf

docs/sept_6_council_appv1.pdf

Tel. 705 657-8432 c/o Club Whitesands, P.O. Box 214, Buckhorn, email whitesands@primus.ca ON K0L 1J0 

June 23, 2002

Good morning Wolf Lake Property Owners:

Thank you for the complimentary remarks concerning me that have appeared in some recent emails. I am flattered that some of you think my thoughts might be useful at your AGM.

I believe that most of you on Wolf Lake require additional information that you should carefully review before your AGM if you wish to get maximum benefit from that meeting. My attendance, or that of anyone else perceived to be "some sort of an expert" on these matters, is of secondary importance to you having fairly complete and accurate information available to you concerning all of your options prior to that meeting. I believe that the facts concerning KHSS issues tend to speak for themselves. 

Three months ago I had heard of Wolf Lake and knew where it was located; but, I had never seen it (still haven't) and did not know the name of a single person owning property on the lake. About that time I was requested by some of you to provide some of the information I have been gathering concerning KHSS matters. As a courtesy I contacted Dana Dvorak by telephone (her number appeared on the original SGKH information sheet) and asked her if she too would care to receive some of the information I had available. She agreed to review it. I had previously been advised by persons on the SGKH that Dana had resigned from that organization after the first meeting, and that her mind was made up as far as KHSS matters were concerned. These persons were quite emphatic that I would be wasting my time to try to persuade Dana that options other than a Provincial Park designation for the entire KHSS were worth considering. I certainly believe that Dana is entitled to her personal opinions on these matters.

Despite this advice I started to exchange information with Dana and our initial exchanges were most cordial. However, after receiving only a very small portion of the available information, Dana advised me that there was nothing in my information that would cause her to change her mind. Whoops! And, she provided me with a letter from Janice Griffith, that I had not seen previously, to prove that I was wrong!

NB: This is a very important point.

It seems that Dana was mislead by a quotation taken out of context by Janice Griffith in her letter of November 29th, 2001 and, as a result, Dana believed that the District Land Use Guidelines (DLUGs) for the Bancroft and Minden Districts were no longer in effect on General Use Crown Land; and she so advised Wolf Lake Cottagers on April 18th, 2002 (when she also advised you that I was misleading people). Copies of emails available on request.

According to my information this is absolutely false, and I sent you and Dana a rebuttal of her arguments on May 17th to establish my position. Dana has ignored that rebuttal as far as I know (she has not acknowledged it to me), so I have no idea whether or not she even read my arguments. Please see page 33 of the July 1999 Approved Land Use Strategy.

It is my opinion, and that of every other group, association council etc. that has studied the issue (the Catchacoma Cottagers' Association came onside on June 10th), that the best way to protect property rights and Free Use Policy Privileges is to create continuous corridors of General Use Crown Land by the "boundary adjustment" mechanism. The boundary adjustment is provided for in the mandate of the LSC, and the corridors of General Use Crown Land (buffer zones) should separate private property from Crown Land that is designated either provincial park or conservation reserve.

Subsequently, in order to address legitimate concerns of persons such as Dana, and others, regarding excessive and/or abusive exercise of Free Use Policy provisions within these General Use corridors, by transient visitors and/or neighbours, I recommend appropriate signage and, if necessary, Modified Management Areas be established. Signage is provided for in Section 3.4.4a of the Free Use Policy and Section 28 of the Public Lands Act. Modified Management Areas (MMAs) are provided for in the Bancroft and Minden DLUGs.

As you can see, the existence and applicability of the DLUGs is of fundamental importance, and is a "matter of fact", not "conjecture". If I am wrong on this issue, and Dana or someone else proves this to me; then I will admit it and will abandon portions of my arguments, and we can move on to the next issue. I will also be embarrassed, but I always buy pencils with erasers on them!

Suggested Actions:

By Gary Faulkner:

I will endeavor, as soon as possible, to provide you with information that will enable you to prepare for your AGM. If I provide you with a summary or an interpretation of a document, I will try to send you the original document (provided that it is not too lengthy) if I have it available, and you request it. I am unable to do this by mail or by FAX.

I hope that those of you with adequate computing facilities and printers may run off copies for your neighbours, especially of maps that may be very useful.

Todd Kearney has offered to help in this regard and he has already received, and absorbed, much of the material I have that is relevant to Wolf Lake. Others have too, but they may be over-committed with other urgent responsibilities.

By Wolf Lake Property Owners:

Upon receipt of this message contact Dana Dvorak and determine whether or not she concedes that the DLUGs still exist and might be useful in the context of KHSS Options. There is no point debating issues that are "matters of fact" at AGMs on a hot long weekend during the summer! Please let me know the answer.

Obtain ASAP the following references:

1) Ontario's Living Legacy, Land Use Strategy, July 1999.

2) Kawartha Highlands Signature Site, Draft recommendations Report, Local Stakeholder Committee, August 2001.

Both should be available at any MNR Office or, at provincial government Bookstores.


Finally, the KHSS designation and boundary determination is not a lake specific issue. It is a global issue within the KHSS area, and there are twelve major lakes involved outside of the existing KHPP. It behooves all of us to stay abreast of what is happening with persons on "the other lakes" lest we be adversely affected by their recommendations. We should stick together.

It appears as if the bulk of input to the KHSS Project's LSC is coming from persons outside of the KHSS area, and I am not only referring to the LSC itself. This also happened during the Lands for Life initiative. When the input for that project was analyzed prior to July of 1998, it was discovered that submissions from outside the planning area outnumbered submissions from within the planning area by a ratio of 5 to 1. Persons outside the GLSL Planning Area, generally, wanted to protect the area from usage (they seemed to be unaware that it was inhabited). On the other hand, submissions from persons within the planning area indicated that they wished to be able to continue to access their properties and to be able to take advantage of the Free Use Policy Privileges on Crown Land adjacent to their properties that they had been enjoying for decades. Does this seem to be a familiar scenario?

Regards, Gary Faulkner

docs/lauer_letter.pdf

docs/ouellette_letter.pdf

The Kawartha Highlands Signature Site - Proposed by some Property Owners Of the Kawartha Highlands (POOKHs)

docs/issue3_map1.pdf

Hello again Wolf Lake Property Owners:

Attached please find a summary of some recent information and views.

We are attaching a note "Read First" that we sent to folks on Anstruther. Remeber that "exclusions" are not just for access, but also to preserve Free Use Policy privileges.

We find the assumptions made by the executive members of the WLCA to be astonishing; although we have a similar problem on Catchacoma.

Regards,

Gary Faulkner 

docs/issue3_request_exclusions.pdf