Forums Forums Help/Rules Help Edit Profile My Profile Member List Register  
Search Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Search  
Ottertooth Forums * Temagami general * Archive through November 28, 2006 * Take Action for Temagami * Archive through January 9, 2006 < Previous Next >

Author Message
 Link to this message

ed
Moderator

Post Number: 244
Registered: 03-2004


Posted on Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 2:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Take Action for Temagami December 31, 2005


Temagami Integrated Planning (TIP) is a process being undertaken by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) that is directed at the management of recreational activities in the Temagami area. This ongoing process has long-term implications for canoeing in the area and particularly for the preservation of historic canoe routes that cross through Crown Lands.

Since all types of recreation and land use occur throughout the planning area, the TIP process will attempt to harmonize the development and management of:

1.A Recreation Management Plan for unregulated
Crown Lands in the Temagami area.

2.Management Plans for the five Provincial Parks in the area.

3.Management Plans for the eight Conservation Reserves adjacent to the Parks.

Temagami has been a world-class canoeing destination for over a hundred years. These modern travelers rely on an intricate network of trails and portages developed over thousands of years by aboriginal peoples. Accordingly, numerous sites of archeological and cultural significance are found throughout the area.

Temagami is situated in the transition zone between the Great Lakes – St Lawrence Forest to the south and the Boreal Forest to the north and contains the largest remaining stands of old-growth red and white pine in the world. The area also boasts the highest points of land in Ontario - only accessible by canoe and holds many naturally scenic, wild and remote areas. Temagami represents one of the largest un-broken wilderness areas in Ontario at this latitude and is located only a half-days drive from the largest city in Canada.

If we care about Temagami, its cultural heritage and wilderness experience, we need to make our voices heard.

Temagami is again under attack from logging interests, with approvals to increase cutting substantially during the 2004 - 2009 Forest Management Plan. These activities threaten wilderness canoeing by directly destroying traditional portages with roads and extraction blocks. The development of road networks for extraction purposes also allows increased access and use in previously remote areas.

Other groups are pushing for increased motorized access and use. Without proper safeguards, these activities threaten traditional canoe routes by irreversibly damaging historic portages and campsites. Motorized activities further threaten traditional wilderness travel by destroying the solitude and the aesthetics of wilderness that many come to Temagami in search of.

The MNR is asking for public participation in the planning process. Some of us recently attended public meetings in Ottawa and Toronto to understand what we as canoeists can best do to get our concerns heard.

We have an opportunity for our input to make a difference.

Please write a letter supporting preservation of the characteristics that make Temagami so special and help it survive as a canoeing destination.


If you are not into writing letters, you might start by looking at this CPAWS link that describes how to write an effective letter and provides talking points. Go to:
http://www.cpaws-ov.org/effectiveadvocacy1.html

If you want to read further about the Temagami Integrated Planning process, the published documents are posted at: http://www.ontarioparks.com/english/tema_planning. html.
The 1996 Temagami Land Use Plan (TLUP): http://crownlanduseatlas.mnr.gov.on.ca/supportingd ocs/temagami/temanew.html provides the basis for much of the TIP planning process.


If you haven’t got time to read all of this and most of us don’t, then please use the material in the letters that C_Mel and I have put together and posted below. Please feel free to cut and paste excerpts as you see fit add your own introduction and closing statements etc.


It is preferable to send your letter via Canada Post or United States Postal Service. Please don’t be shy, because you have a US address. We know that there are a lot of Americans who visit Temagami, to canoe and we need all the help we can get to protect what little remains of it for future traditional users.

Addresses

John Salo
Park Superintendent
Ontario Parks- Temagami
P.O. Box 38
Temagami, Ontario
POH 2HO
Phone: (705) 569-3205
Or email: john.salo@mnr.gov.on.ca

Rick Calhoun
District Planner - NORTH BAY DISTRICT
3301 Trout Lake Rd
North Bay, ON P1A 4L7
Phone: (705) 475-5546

Or email: rick.calhoun@mnr.gov.on.ca





Hon. David Ramsay
Minister of Natural Resources
Whitney Block
6th Flr Rm 6630
99 Wellesley St W
Toronto, ON M7A 1W3
Phone: 416-314-2301

Or email: dramsay.mpp.kirklandlake@liberal.ola.org


Letter 1.

Dear Sirs:

As a Temagami area canoeist, I am concerned that competing interests are destroying many of the values and historic resources that make this area unique. I would like the TIP management team to address the following issues:

1. Recognize that traditional canoe routes are threatened by roads that cross portages and rivers. Plan so that roads required for industrial purposes do not interfere with canoe routes and implement and enforce stricter access controls on existing roads.

2. Remove roads, bridges and access points that are no longer required for industrial purposes. Replant roads for a quick return to nature following logging activities and install permanent access controls.

3. Recognize and protect all of the traditional travel routes inventoried on Craig MacDonald’s, “Historical Map of Temagami”. Establish 300m buffers around these historic trails and waterways from all roads, motorized trails and industrial activities.

4. Close the Liskeard Lumber road in the Lady Evelyn Smoothwater Wilderness Class Park at Gamble Lake and remove the two bridges crossing the Lady Evelyn River.

5. Ban all motorized travel in the Lady Evelyn Smoothwater Wilderness Class Park, the Sturgeon River, Obabika River and Solace Provincial Waterway Parks.

6. Close access to gated areas during the canoeing season, from May 1 to October 30.

7. Maintain existing access controls and motorized restrictions on Obabika Lake.

8. Formulate a Temagami Recreation Management Area plan to include the maintenance and protection of all historical travel routes on Crown Lands. Collect fees from all Crown Land users and apply revenue to support the maintenance and administration related to all recreational activities in the planning area.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute.

Yours truly,


Letter 2.

Dear Sirs:

As a Temagami area canoeist I have several concerns that I would like the TIP management team to address:

• Recognize that traditional canoe routes are threatened by logging roads that cross portages and rivers. Plan, so that roads required for industrial purposes do not interfere with canoe routes.

• Remove road access points. Replant roads for a quick return to nature following logging activities. This will moderate expectation and demands for public motorized access, while preventing the creation of unauthorized ATV trails and destruction of portages.

• Protect all the Nastawgan routes shown on Craig MacDonald’s, “Historical Map of Temagami”, with 300m buffers on each side of the trails and waterways. This requires co-operative effort with adjacent MNR districts to ensure those routes outside of the TLUP are protected and provide seamless travel from district to district.

• Close the Liskeard Lumber road in the Lady Evelyn Smoothwater Wilderness Class Park at Gamble Lake and remove the two bridges crossing the Lady Evelyn River.

• Ban all motorized travel in the Lady Evelyn Smoothwater Wilderness Class Park, on the Sturgeon River, Obabika River and in Solace Provincial Waterway Parks.

• Maintain existing access controls and motorized restrictions on Obabika Lake.

• Close access to gated areas during the canoeing season, from May 1 to October 30.

• Formulate a Temagami Recreation Management Area plan to include the historical canoe routes on Crown lands and Conservation Reserves. Collect fees from all Crown land users, canoers, hikers, boaters, campers, hunters, anglers, snowmobilers and ATV enthusiasts. Apply the money to the development, support and maintenance of the recreational trails, waterways, portages and campsites.


Thank you for the opportunity to contribute.

Yours truly,


Letter 3.
This detailed letter was written by Chris (C_Mel) and posted on CCR. It is available if you wish to send in a more comprehensive version.

http://www.myccr.com/SectionForums/viewtopic.php?t =14588


We need the support of all canoeists to get this underway and make it a successful campaign.

Please take action to save Temagami.

Thank you for your help.

Chris Melanson
Ed. MacPherson
 Link to this message

doug_2
Member

Post Number: 92
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 4:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post


Good ideas in these letters. The writers deserve a lot of credit.

Having worked with Ontario Parks planning in the past and watching how input was used in the past, I have some more ideas for tweaking input. I think it is useful to be as specific as possible, when possible. These example letters do have specifics but maybe even more specifics would be that much better.
That way no one reading the input will second guess a meaning. This is especially true in cases where many people may use the same letter or cut and paste phrases. Here are a couple of examples of what I mean:

It may be better to say "300 meter buffer on EACH side of a portage, than to say a 300 meter buffer (period). That is because a 300 meter buffer might be interpreted as 150 meter buffer on each side of the portage, which is a lot smaller than 300 meters on each side. (one letter is specific that way, but the other isn't). Or for those that think 150 on each side of trail is sufficient , then they can say that.
But also it may be important to define the word "buffer". To MNR the word "buffer" may mean something different than to you and I. Is it a no cut area or an area that may be "managed" in some way or another to "buffer" the portage (for instance).? This may sound like splitting hairs but it may be quite important.

On the subject of roads and portages; this too may be a good place to get a bit more specific. The subject of a road crossing a portage probably is worth addressing. If roads were not permitted to ever cross ANY portages or trails on Craig MacDonald's map, then there would be almost no roads in Temagami (and none of any length). So how they cross, which ones they cross or if they should cross any at all are important subjects.

"Plan, so that roads required for industrial purposes do not interfere with canoe routes."
I think some more specifics on this statement would be a good idea since this means different things to different people....and for MNR it may mean something quite different than what we may think. MNR may feel that the measures they al ready have in place accomplish this (ie "buffers" ). In other words, what does it take to protect a canoe route and why? That is the kind of info they may need to get more of.

Just some more ideas to add to some already good letters!






 Link to this message

ed
Moderator

Post Number: 246
Registered: 03-2004


Posted on Sunday, January 1, 2006 - 12:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Doug_2:
Thanks for your comments and critique.We do have some ambiguity in there and we are hoping that we get an opportunity to discuss that further with the MNR people.

While I have this opportunity, I would also like to thank Brian for his help with this effort and also PaulT. who suggested a suitable format and helped us to focus our thoughts.
 Link to this message

mike
Member

Post Number: 9
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Monday, January 2, 2006 - 10:47 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Ed,

I completly agree with your thread and am very greatful that you did not mention we very remote LUP holders as one of the obsticles in preserving the area. I have three very distinct views on the situation.

First, the Background doucument that was issued is so long, complicated and redundent that it would take a huge team of lawyers and consultants to put into the realm of undestanding for the common person.I cant imagine what it cost the parks system to write it.They could have done that in 4 or 5 pages and directly adressed the facts as they really are.In reality this is what we are facing, big business and politics.

One point that especially hits me is the fee situation.6 or 7 bucks a night within the Parks is redicously low. I dont mean to discriminate against anyone but to be able to plan and take part in a wilderness experience such as in the area is worth much more in my opinion.If you cant afford another 50 -60 bucks while in the park system, you should not be there.I dont think there are many of us who visit the area cant in reality afford the fee. My lease costs me 650 bucks a year and I drop another 15 hundred to 2 k into the area over any given year. By no means am I a wealthy individual. Where do my fees go as well as those from the users of the parks? What ever happened to the system that was set up where there was to be at least 2 individuals checking on fees with a third with arrest authorization in case of trouble.The whole damn thing is just a big political facade run by big business and politics.This guy Ramsay who comes from the area, in my mind and many others on the lake , is nothing but one big phoney with a lot of political self interests. He has a history of this.The Canadian government is now in turmoil.[I believe you are Canadian and know much more than I do]. I often wonder what the trickle down effect will be on us.

Secondly I really think that we are in this mess together,tripper, cottage owner or LUP holder. We have to work as a unit to try and achieve our goals.

Third, I often think that we LUP holders who are so very remote in most cases, are being used by the government as somewhat of a sacrifical lamb to apease the extreme element of the issue. You must admit that there are those who are very exterme on this matter.As I mentioned on my other thread, there is a big difference between theory and practice. We must live in harmony to co exist.

Mike
 Link to this message

paul_t
Member

Post Number: 12
Registered: 08-2005
Posted on Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 10:29 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

Chris and Ed have devoted a tremendous amount of time and effort to this issue.

Now is the time for everyone else that cares about Temagami to participate and maybe there will be a Temagami to experience for our children and grandchildren.

Please take five minutes and compose a letter!!
 Link to this message

paul_t
Member

Post Number: 13
Registered: 08-2005
Posted on Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 10:33 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

Sample letter as an American resident:

November 18, 2005

John Salo
Park Superintendent
Ontario Parks- Temagami
P.O. Box 38
Temagami, Ontario
POH 2HO

Dear Mr. Salo

I am a Canadian/ American dual citizen living 1500 miles away and spend most of the year looking forward to my yearly trip to Temagami. I travel to Temagami every year for the wilderness experience and unique beauty the region provides. These same features have drawn travelers from all over the world for over 100 years, leading to Temagami’s international reputation as a canoeing destination and wilderness area. This is Temagami’s greatest natural resource and needs to be protected and promoted.

Along these lines please consider the following suggestions:

1. Establish a relatively undisturbed wilderness corridor from the north and west of Lake Temagami extending into the parks and conservation reserves. Prioritize park-related recreational values and prohibit development of new ATV trails in Special Management Areas 27, 34, 43, 45, 48, 49 and 50a (as defined by the Temagami Land Use Plan). Strictly limit future logging plans in these Special Management Areas and restrict public access from existing logging roads as outlined below in Suggestions 4 and 5. Prohibit motorized recreational travel in the adjacent parks and conservation reserves.
The Temagami Land Use Plan has already mandated these recommendations. These measures will protect the integrity of the entire wilderness ecosystem including the parks and adjacent conservation reserves. This will also heighten the experience for wilderness travelers in the area and make management and protection of the backcountry region less fragmented.

2. Preserve the Temagami Nastawgan as a cultural heritage site. Enforce a 300-meter buffer from logging or motorized activity on both sides of these trails. Native groups have used the Nastawgan for thousands of years, fur traders for hundreds of years and finally canoeists and youth camps, including the oldest canoe camp in the world, for the last one hundred years. The Temagami Nastawgan is the best example of its kind in the world. Treasure it, preserve it and promote it.

3. Road access to Lady Evelyn-Smoothwater Park via the Liskeard Lumber Road should end at Gamble Lake. Remove bridges over the North and South Branches of the Lady Evelyn River in keeping with Ontario Parks’ goal for a Wilderness Park

4. Recognize that traditional canoe routes are threatened by logging roads that cross portages and rivers.

5. Remove logging road access points when logging is completed. Replant roads for a quick return to nature following logging activities. This will moderate expectation and demands for public motorized access, while preventing the creation of unauthorized ATV trails and destruction of portages.

6. Develop designated ATV trails and areas according to the Temagami Land Use Plan in Integrated Management Areas along the Highway 11 corridor and Special Management Areas 6, 10, 12, 22, 27 and 29. ATV use in Conservation Reserves adjacent to the parks should be only as stipulated by the Temagami Land Use Plan (in Smith Lake Conservation Reserve). ATV’s severely damage portages, therefore ATV use on Nastawgan portages should be prohibited.

7. Develop and enforce a Crown Land Camping Policy with designated campsites, no damage to live trees, latrines installed and garbage controlled. Collect fees from all Crown Land users and apply revenue to support the maintenance and administration related to all recreational activities in the planning area.

8. The Temagami area should have a name for recreation management and tourism purposes to help support the above endeavors, such as Grey Owl Wilderness Area or Temagami-Nastawgan Recreation District.

I look forward to upcoming phases of planning and pray that the Ministry and Ontario Parks continue to work toward protecting the unique resource that is Temagami.

Respectfully submitted

Paul Tamburro

 Link to this message

mike
Member

Post Number: 10
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - 2:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

I would like to apologize for some remarks I made in my last post. I am by nature a very outspoken person and on a rare ocassion passion will outweigh common sense and protacol as in this case.When I see the word "letter" it reminds me of how many our small group has written to the local legestative office and to the then office in Sudbury since this issue first arose almost 20 years ago. Not one was ever acknowledged by even a form letter.To us it is extreme frustration and a total lack of interest in the subject.Lets move on.

Mike
 Link to this message

paul_t
Member

Post Number: 14
Registered: 08-2005
Posted on Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - 12:46 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

Not a problem Mike.

Public opinion has changed policy in Temagami otherwise we might be driving the Lady Evelyn River Road to ski Maple Mountain. John Salo (Park’s Superintendent) has assured me our letters are noticed and the greater the response the more attention will be paid. Maybe your previous frustration with writing was because you were a small group.

Personally, I would rather take a stand and make my opinion heard; hoping for whatever little influence I may have over the outcome rather than do nothing and let events unfold. We can always whine about the result later. I hope other people feel the same way and take a few minutes to let their voice be heard.
 Link to this message

c_mel
Member

Post Number: 79
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - 12:09 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

The MNR needs to recognize the Temagami Nastawgan as a heritage and a recreational value in its ENTIRETY– not as piecemeal bits of routes and portages.

In my mind, it is this integrated travel network and the ability to travel freely in a multitude of directions that gives Temagami much of its unique and wild character. This network also carries the four-season wilderness adventure and eco-tourism potential for the District. This potential can never be realized without the proper preservation of the integrity of this network.

As I understand the MNR’s mode of operation regarding Heritage Trail Identification and Protection (please correct…):
- A road or cut is planned or proposed for a given area.
- Reference material is checked for associated values; cultural, heritage, recreational - Craig Macdonald’s Map is commonly used by the MNR for this.
- The existence of a heritage trail (HT) or the potential for a HT is determined.
- If a HT exists, some provisions may then be made.
- If a HT in not apparent, the area may then be said to have a High Heritage Resource Potential
- The area is then checked for trail evidence – some inconsistencies regarding proper field skills and identification exist here.
- If no evidence is found then the HT value does not exist. Therefore, no special considerations are given to the area and forest operations may then proceed.
(It is my understanding that this is what happened with the Aston-Eagle portage. Apparently some bits of the original trail were located - after the fact.)

If one looks at the common recreational reference materials for the District, mainly Hap’s books and MNR maps, you will see that there are routes uncommon to all versions. Some routes were more viable when maintenance was higher, other less used routes have become more popular lately, and still other routes not used in 50 years or more are now real possibilities. Beyond all this, there are other routes, connectors and possibilities that yet exist. These facts underscore the point that this area still has so much unrealized potential. However, we will loose the potential that these Nastawgan represent if we don’t make an effort to lay a claim on them. We must use them or loose them. Here we need specifics.

Recently:
- Pilgrim Creek was re-opened – an important connector between Solace and Sturgeon River, although in a SMA we need to insure the integrity and wild character of this route - reported to be an amazing spring run.

- Solace to Hamlow connector was recently re-opened – a beautiful and quite a logical little cut-through.

These areas may have been afforded some level of recognition and preservation already, however we need to insure that in these areas, and in many others, the MNR is protecting the values that make such routes so attractive to travellers like us.

There are many other areas that should be checked and re-opened if possible.

CAUTION: If you are considering such an adventure, PLEASE make an effort to contact individuals who might be able provide some insight. I might not be the most knowledgeable or trail-wise, but I can certainly relay your questions to those who are and possibly provide some field assistance. Feel free to e-mail me. One must exercise restraint and patience and carefully and thoroughly inspect an area before any cuts are made – we don’t want to inadvertently damage the very thing that we have come to value.

I would also like to compile a list of threatened and damaged Nastawgan – both the summer and winter routes and document their usage status (in use or not) and the specific threats.

A few examples of threatened Nastawgan (Summer - not in use):
- Lower Nasmith: Logging and Roads
- Nasmith to Pinetorch: Logging and Roads
- Obabika connector to Pinetorch area: Roads
- Yorston River and connectors: Logging, Roads, ATV usage, spoilage
- Several in the Muskegos: Logging and Roads

Perhaps you have more to add?

Chris
temagamirocks@yahoo.ca
 Link to this message

doug_2
Member

Post Number: 93
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - 2:22 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Chris ..
I agree that the Nastawgan, and how that system of trails is recognized, protected, used, and promoted, is going to be critical to the future of Temagami as a world class canoe and eco-adventure-tourism area. Your word "potential" is a word I haven’t seen used enough. Very good point I think. I recall Craig MacDonald talking about why the corridors are located where they are. The reason is pretty obvious I guess but sometimes overlooked by those that see no future potential. In the days before roads, these trails, winter and summer, followed the "best" allignments for linking lakes and welands that were the travel routes. So..of course it makes perfect sense that these historocal trails, even the ones not being used much now, have future potential for winter and summer back country travel.

I'm not sure how many are aware of this, but there is another Ministry often involved in making recommendations about heritage trails and cultural resources in Temagami. It is not just the MNR and Ontario Parks. Some may assume that the Ministry of Culture would take a strong stance to protect all of these trails as heritage resources as a "system". But so far I have not seen the evidence of that. Archeologists responsible for providing input for this ministry may not always be working for the "on the ground" protection of such resources; at least not as a "system of trails". They may want to "protect "representative" historical trails, while simply "recording" information about others, for the future, especially in cases where the trail is hard to find or partly "lost" due to lack of use, past logging, fire etc. If this is still the approach, then this Ministry may not be "quite" on side on this subject. ( I stand to be corrected, since I'm looking back a few years).
It might be worthwhile to find out exactly what management opinion this Ministry holds for the protecting and or manageing the Nastawgan as a system. It would not surprise me to find out that they may not think it is their "mandate" to protect "all" the trails. Whatever they recommend now on a case by case basis falls into MNR's hands to determine how to implement that advice. I'm thinking that "future recreation" potential may be the best way to get these trails protected...(the onces that are not proetced already). But if Ministry of Culture could reccommend protecting the system ( to the degree possible) that would make this a lot easier....?
 Link to this message

mike
Member

Post Number: 13
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - 4:51 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Paul T

I personally remember that issue about making Maple Mt a ski resort. It was just a few years after I arrived in the area, back in the early 70's. I believe that was the whole issue that started this thing.In retrospect , if it would not have happened, I seriously wonder where we all would be now.

Mike
 Link to this message

paul_t
Member

Post Number: 15
Registered: 08-2005
Posted on Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - 8:03 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

All excellent points, as usual, I learned something new.

A couple of questions:
Is there a published inventory of Cultural Heritage trails and what current protection is accorded them?
Have members of Temagami First Nation opined on the subject of protecting the Nastwagan? I have said this before, but obviously their support would lend even more credence to the issue.
 Link to this message

onlypassnthru
Member

Post Number: 28
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 11:05 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

The Nastawgan are a very significant and important cultural resource, but are not the only cultural treasures in the area. There are various Pictographs throughout the area, native religious and historical sites, and historical artifacts from European-Canadians too. I wonder if everything has been catalogued, it may be some have already been lost in the mists of time.
There is at least one First Nations advocate for the region, Alec.
 Link to this message

ed
Moderator

Post Number: 249
Registered: 03-2004


Posted on Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 12:44 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

There is a Native values map, of Heritage sites in the Temagami area. It is doubtful it will ever be published and made available to the general public, if they want to protect these sites from exploitation / vandalism.
I remember a number of years ago someone was caught crossing back into the USA at Sarnia with a piece of a pictograph they had chiselled out of the rock from the Diamond Lake site.

 Link to this message

onlypassnthru
Member

Post Number: 29
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 1:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Ed,
That's a terrible shame, I hope the culprit(s) received more than just a "slap on the wrist." Your story illustrates the conundrum, how can these places/the region be shared, and at the same time protected.
I know you personally have done things to help, thunderboxes at some campsites and such.
It would be good if permit fees went back into the area for conservation and management purposes, but I don't believe that is happening. I think that most efforts recently have been private.
Bill

(Message edited by onlypassnthru on January 5, 2006)
 Link to this message

brian
Moderator

Post Number: 505
Registered: 02-2004


Posted on Friday, January 6, 2006 - 10:05 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

Ed, when and who was caught taking a piece of a pictograph?

Which Diamond site is missing a pictograph?
 Link to this message

ed
Moderator

Post Number: 251
Registered: 03-2004


Posted on Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 4:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

It was along time ago, Brian, back in the early 1980s.
I lived in Sarnia at the time and it was reported on the local news as someone from the USA returning through Port Huron, was searched by US customs and found to have a piece of rock with a Pictogaph on it.He apparently confessed that it had been taken from Diamond Lake. That is all I know about it.
 Link to this message

brian
Moderator

Post Number: 508
Registered: 02-2004


Posted on Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 11:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

How sure are you that it was the early 1980s?
 Link to this message

alscool
Member

Post Number: 69
Registered: 02-2004


Posted on Monday, January 9, 2006 - 8:43 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

Here is a pic of Reynold Turner of Bear Island checking out the desecration of his cultural heritage at the pictograph site on Diamond lake.




(Message edited by alscool on January 9, 2006)
 Link to this message

brian
Moderator

Post Number: 509
Registered: 02-2004


Posted on Monday, January 9, 2006 - 9:21 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

What desecration does this photo show?

And are you trying to show the desecration that Ed says took place in the 1980s?
 Link to this message

alscool
Member

Post Number: 70
Registered: 02-2004


Posted on Monday, January 9, 2006 - 10:24 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

The story off the pictograph thievery was told to us by Alex Mathias on many occasions and reiterated when we visited the site.

 Link to this message

brian
Moderator

Post Number: 511
Registered: 02-2004


Posted on Monday, January 9, 2006 - 10:48 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

Do you know when this happened?
 Link to this message

alscool
Member

Post Number: 71
Registered: 02-2004


Posted on Monday, January 9, 2006 - 10:57 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

I can't recall, my brain is clouded up from the errant campfire smoke that constanley drifts my way, no matter where I sit.

I bet that Bill Buchan knows.
 Link to this message

ed
Moderator

Post Number: 252
Registered: 03-2004


Posted on Monday, January 9, 2006 - 12:18 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post


Brian:
I don't remember the exact year. It was a long time ago, long before I met Alex Mathias in 1999. I recall that I had not been to Temagami for several years and I don't recall the story making the National press, so it may have been in the Sarnia Observer or on the local radio station.I lived in Sarnia between 1975 and 1989.
I think you need to ask Alex M.as to his recollection of when this may have happened. Like alscool, my brain has been subjected to much smoke over the years and sometimes all I see is fog.
 Link to this message

brian
Moderator

Post Number: 512
Registered: 02-2004


Posted on Monday, January 9, 2006 - 12:26 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Did this theft take place at the Diamond site shown in the photos above?

Forums | Last Day | Last Week | Search | User List | Help/Rules Home