Forums Forums Help/Rules Help Edit Profile My Profile Member List Register  
Search Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Search  
Ottertooth Forums * Temagami canoe routes & backcountry travel * Archive through July 25, 2006 * "Virtual Algonquin" < Previous Next >

Author Message
 Link to this message

mike
Member

Post Number: 34
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 7:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Pull this up and then hit rules and regs. Is this what we are looking at for the future? I have been worried about it for years, ever since Algonquin Outfitters tried to set up a base in the area to service Temagami and Lady Evelyn canoers. If I am right they are the largest outfitter in the Algonquin area. For whatever reason they pulled out. The Algonquin situation is the reason I moved further north and that was 36 years ago.

This was many years ago when the land caution was still in effect and they may have decided to wait and see how the situation was resolved. At the time I believe LE/Smoothwater was the only designated Park however it may not have been. I just cant recall. Of course now the whole area is one big park with different names and the TIP will soon be a fact of life for everyone.

Can you just imagine what publicity, promotional efforts and bucks will do once the TIP is resolved.I am sure many of you have traveled Algonquin and know exactly what I mean.

Sadly,I believe they are a-comming boys and I want you to take a moment and think what it will do to the Nastawgan.

Mike
 Link to this message

c_mel
Member

Post Number: 85
Registered: 02-2004


Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 10:06 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

Hi Mike,

Your post has me somewhat confused…

Are you referring to this page: http://www.doe.carleton.ca/~ngt/algonquin/intro.ht ml ?

This is someone’s personal Web Page.

Rules and Regs: If you are referring, I think you are, to the need to make a reservation in advance and specifically list your camping lakes on the permit. This is today’s reality of the increasing need for this type of recreational area in Ontario. The Parks developed for this are running at or near full capacity. This is one reason I don’t travel Algonquin as much anymore.

Are you saying that the TIP will bring this to Temagami?

For starters, I don’t think that Algonquin and Temagami are really a fair comparison – apples and oranges. Algonquin is a Park. Temagami is an amalgam of Land Use areas of which about a fifth are Parks or Protected areas, if I remember properly. Algonquin is managed by a Park Plan. Temagami is, or will be managed by several plans, but the most important is a Land Use Plan. These are very different situations.

If Temagami Lands, most or which are Crown, are going to be managed for many things including recreation – where will the funds come from? Who will pay to maintain or improve access, sites and facilities, things like boat ramps, patrols and routine maintenance? The MNR Operations Budget? The Forest Companies? The Town? The user? Do you think things should be left to develop on their own as in past, even though use will only increase because the need for this type of recreation area is increasing? - The very reason why there are so many restrictions is Algonquin.

Regarding the statement, “The whole area is one big park.” Are you referring to the Wilderness Park, the attached Waterway Parks and the adjacent Conservation reserves? I don’t want to get into the whole Waterway Park – a façade of protection debate, but the Total protected areas (whatever that may mean) are about a fifth of the planning area, if I remember properly. The reminder of the area is to be developed, or not, in accordance with the TLUP – in theory anyway.

The TIP is just one planning component for the area and it is intended to address many of the issues related to recreation brought up within the TLUP. When the TIP is finalized – note: it is a process that will produce not one plan but three, you will not see some new and “glorious” Park like area – the TLUP does not allow for that. Many of the issues that I think you might be concerned about with have their guidance and rules set within the TLUP. I think you should look back to the source and what will have the greatest impact on your concerns

What I personally think is going to happen with all this is a new Ontario model for Crown Land management and how Parks will be integrated with the surrounding areas. I would like to see the traditional routes (nastawgan) have a special place within this new model because this, to me, symbolizes the Temagami Backcountry.

I don’t understand your Algonquin Outfitters reference… what are you inferring here and who or what will happen to the nastawgan? What is happening now is a free for all and the MNR and the Forest Companies have a, “Use it or loose it mentality” and if “I don’t see it, then it don’t exist!”

Chris
 Link to this message

hillbilly
Member

Post Number: 161
Registered: 03-2004


Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 5:08 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

mike,
I have to agree with c_mel. Temagami is different from Algonquin. I think and this is only me is that Algonquin Outfitters tried to set up inthe Temagami area and with the other established outfitters there and a smaller canoeing population found itwas not profitable. The only way Temagami area would even come close to be as busy and need to be as regulated as Algonquin is if it were to become one park for the whole backcountry area. Which by the way would make it larger than Algonquin. If that did happen it would be many years before Temagami became as popular as for canoests as Algonquin.
Bill
 Link to this message

paul_t
Member

Post Number: 32
Registered: 08-2005
Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 7:28 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

I think we all want the same thing: a Temagami as wild and free as the day we first got there.

It is all a matter of perspective. Mike settles in pristine backcountry. Twenty years later his property is surrounded by a newly created park, threatening the viability of his lease. Of course he sees the area as overly “parkified”. Canoeists, on the other hand, are watching the backcountry be logged with increased motorized access and view parks as protection not threats.

Regardless of perspective, change is inevitable. Temagami will not remain the same. So how do we make the best of it? The best idea I have heard so far is uniting to protect the entire nastawgan. It is the network that connects the entire district, the lakes and rivers, Crown land, conservation reserves and parks alike. It is Temagami’s cultural heritage and potential for economic, tourism growth. Protecting these routes with adequate buffers will protect more wilderness than any single initiative I can think of.

If anyone else has a better idea I would love to hear it.
 Link to this message

ed
Moderator

Post Number: 266
Registered: 03-2004


Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 9:15 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

Some how we need to find a way to be inclusive of all recreational pursuits that occur in Temagami. In some areas we as canoeists will have to agree to either coexist with the hunters, ATVers,snowmobilers, motorboaters, TLUP holders etc.or stay away from those areas. In other areas they will have to give up the fight for unfettered and complete access that is currently being pursued by some of these groups.

I wonder how that will be accomplished?
 Link to this message

alscool
Member

Post Number: 81
Registered: 02-2004


Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 2:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Round table discussions with representatives from groups concerned.
 Link to this message

mike
Member

Post Number: 35
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 4:30 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Guys,

I found that site by accident while looking for something else. I thought the info was revelant so I posted it. I think some of you may have misunderstood me so hopefully this will clear it up.

I was strictly speaking in a pure generic sense, especially when I referred to the area as one big park.I realize there are vast differences between Algonquin and the Temagami / LE areas as they now stand however there are yet similarities. The best plans of mice and men have been altered by the one thing that will affect all of us, the human element.

Over the years I have witnessed the canoe traffic increase from almost nil to where it is today. On any given day in the summer one can spend a couple of hours at Frank falls and you might see as many as 40 people making the crossover. Of course this includes groups. Sometimes they have to line up. That is a lot of people.

As it now stands the area can handle the traffic but what about the future and I mean the immediate future, not 10 years from now. With the advent of increased traffic venturing further into the wilds if for any reason other than to avoid the crowds, soon will follow the bad habits of some. We have all seen this problem evolve to the point it is today on the heavy traveled routes.

In my opinion there are many who should not be on the lake today because of inexperience, lack of proper preparation, bad habits and more often than not, inadequate navigation skills. With the increase in traffic these problems will only be magnified. It is a problem we are going to have to address.

Once the final plan is instituted I personally think there will be promotional efforts by some, including the government in an attempt to enhance increased user participation in the area. Bucks pay the bills.

As far as Nastawgan is concerned, I really dont think there are very many out there other than the readers of this forum, who know what it really is and what it stands for. Some, I am sure couldnt give a damn either. Self interest is a very serious problem in our society. If in the future these trails were to be "trashed" by the irresponsible, it would be tragic. Especially in view of how much work many of you have put forth in order to save them. There are just not too many areas like this in the world today.

I hope I have clarified my post.

Mike
 Link to this message

doug_2
Member

Post Number: 101
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 5:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Ed;
I'd like to think your idea could work but I don;t think it will. As more and more motorized uses hit Temagami, the back country canoeing will take the hit...not the other way around.....
Don't you agree?
 Link to this message

hillbilly
Member

Post Number: 164
Registered: 03-2004


Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 7:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

doug_2,
I do not agree. Many are working to come up with a working plan to make sure canoests have thier peace and quiet in the traditional canoe areas but also allow ATV'ers have there area and motorized boats thiers. In some places these may overlap but if the planning goes the wat I hope it does the overlap will be minimal and only on some of the lower used canoe routes and only on crown land and not within any of the parks or conservation areas.
With more and more canoests coming to the Temagami their is a greater need to keep much of the area for the canoest but the the growing ATV'ersthere will have to be some area set aside for them. The best solution is always compromise with strict enforcable rules. Logging within Temagami is always a sore spot for canoests or at least the clear-cut logging that goes on. That is something we can still fight agaist and try to at least slow it down or stop it in certain areas but I do not think anything or anyone is going to be able to stop the logging. To me it seems as if it a non-negotiable item in the Temagami Area.

Mike,
You are right about
"In my opinion there are many who should not be on the lake today because of inexperience, lack of proper preparation, bad habits and more often than not, inadequate navigation skills."
I have to agree with. Many canoests or coming to the area and do not have experience to handle situations that will, can and are happening to them when on some of the big lakes such as L.E. Temagami and many others. With very few portage and campsite signs,they are unable to or find it very hard to find there way do the inadequate skills. I do not know what can be done to convince people that want to come to the Temagami area that they do need more fine tuned skillsthan it takes to do much of Algonquin Park.
Bill
}
 Link to this message

hillbilly
Member

Post Number: 166
Registered: 03-2004


Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 7:20 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Sorry about the multi posts. Everytime I went to preview I was posted.
Bill
 Link to this message

kim
Moderator

Post Number: 126
Registered: 03-2004


Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 9:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

You have a bad stutter there Bill.
You need to be on the water.....soon!
 Link to this message

doug_2
Member

Post Number: 102
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 12:04 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Bill: Re: what you said :
"In some places these may overlap but if the planning goes the way I hope it does the overlap will be minimal and only on some of the lower used canoe routes and only on crown land and not within any of the parks or conservation areas."

Yes I too hope for that. There must be some really good negotiators out there then. I applaud their efforts if that is their goal and if they can somehow acheive it. If all the parks and conservation reserves have no overlap for motorized vs non motorized uses; that would be a remarkable acheivement for the parks and canoeists.
For all the high use canoe routes to have no overlap for motorized vs non motorized? Wow...that's going to be a tough one. Seems like to me? Tough enough even within parks.
True though; the various user groups are not planning to go away but maybe they are willing to give up some turf, but that would also mean canoeists too. I guess I visualize any compromise as parks vs crown land for the most part. But even in Parks, removal of say motorboats from the parks portion of Lady Evelyn Lake? Do you think people will be willing to give up motorboats there? (one example).



 Link to this message

ed
Moderator

Post Number: 267
Registered: 03-2004


Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 12:26 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

doug_2 said:
"As more and more motorized uses hit Temagami, the back country canoeing will take the hit...not the other way around.....
Don't you agree?"

I don't necessarily believe that will happen at least as far as ATV's are concerned.To my mind irresponsible ATV riders are causing a major problem.
I think it is becoming generally recognized that these vehicles do significant damage when they travel on trails that are designed for hiking, portaging,sking etc. and I believe the recognition of this damage is just starting to be understood and acted upon.I think that if the ATV users do not quickly figure out how to control and self regulate their pursuit others will do it for them.

The industry could start this process by taking a critical look at the way they sell their machines. Advertising that depicts an ATV rider whippping over a forest trail with wheels spinning , tearing into the ground and destroying the soil structure is not in the public interest. A depiction of the destruction of the common ground that we all share will be their undoing.
The industry is still in it's infancy and I believe it needs to educate it's participants in the use of the vehicles.By all means enjoy the vehicles,but use them responsibly. Don't go pushing them through swamps or skidding up or down hills.Stay away from trails that can be damaged.We all know the machines can do these things so why keep trying to prove it.

I don't think snowmobiling was that much different when it started to become popular 35 - 40 years ago. At that time I lived in the rural community of Elmira and it was not uncommon to have snowmobiles driving over your lawn or through your flower garden in the backyard,usually with tanked up drivers. That doesn't happen much any more.
I think ATV's are at the same stage as Snowmobiling was then. The difference is that many of us are watching the situation more closely now and we will become very vocal if that becomes necessary.

I think the ATVers have only a narrow window of opportunity to reign themselves in and start to behave like responsible citizens and responsible machine users.They have no right to destroy our common Crown Lands and they have no right of travel in our Parks or on our portage trails or hiking trails.
 Link to this message

doug_2
Member

Post Number: 103
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 12:54 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

I agree Ed. I don;t have the "stats" on ATV;s but I'm sure their numbers are ever increasing in Northern Ontario. Because the use is so high I'm betting that most of the people using them do not "see" the problem; or certainly not clearly. They may look at it that they are "sharing" with other users. Other motorized users often label canoeists and hikers as "selfish", since generally the non motorized "experience" is impacted negatively by motorized uses....but not so much the other way around. I don;t mean that negotiating a reasonable settlement isn;t possible but in an ever increasing motorized market in the north; it's simply very difficult.
 Link to this message

hillbilly
Member

Post Number: 167
Registered: 03-2004


Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 6:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Kim,
I was on water only last night.

doug_2,
I think the main overlap regarding motor boats will be on Lady Evelyn Lake,Willow Island Lake and Sucker Gut Lake. With some motor boats on other Lakes such as Lady Duferin, Obabika Lake, and on the lower Sturgeon River.There may be others that I have missed. As for ATV's we do not know right now. There maybe and there may not be. As Ed has said most of the ATV's we see now are not suppose to be where they are. I am hoping the MNR can stop most of the ATV's in areas where they are not allowed.
Bill
Bill
Bill

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