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 18, 2008 * Promoting the Portelance Road to the Sturgeon < Previous Next >

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Archive through December 7, 2007micmac25 12-7-07  11:37 am
Archive through December 15, 2007les25 12-15-07  4:08 am
  ClosedNew messages will be added after most recent message, not on archived pages        

Author Message
 Link to this message

sundown
Member

Post Number: 258
Registered: 04-2007
Posted on Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 7:23 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

Hi Les

As a former OMNR guy, I thought I'd weigh-in here.

If you have gathered from anyone's prose here that OMNR or OP staff are getting slagged... well, I've read back thru what has been written
here, and from knowing most of the personalities of the posters, I reckon your concern is unnecessary.

I personally call it a rare day when i am not "working with" either the OMNR or OP Staff in one capacity or the other... somewhere across Northern Ontario...both present and
retired staff... to attain a better Reality than we presently enjoy. I have been amazed at the heartfelt assistance and co-operation I enjoy...
and, I reckon the staff feel the same way...

The system itself... well, it has its' undeniable vagaries, mutually agreed on bothsides... and, none of us spends a lot of time worrying over political alignments.

I've seen every manner of political party come and go over the last 40 years... and I/we dont get bogged down by things that cant be known.
It takes a long-term view, and worthwhile intents...

and, things worthwhile are seldom easy.

That's Life.

Should Ontario Parks or OMNR be allowing Motorized Vehicles to cross a Riverbed?

Well, the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans definately dont think so... it's their jurisdiction.


Sundown
 Link to this message

brian
Moderator

Post Number: 812
Registered: 02-2004


Posted on Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 10:31 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

Good point on the Dept of Fisheries and Oceans.
 Link to this message

sundown
Member

Post Number: 259
Registered: 04-2007
Posted on Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 6:50 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Brian

Just so you know... it has been confirmed, long ago.

Every Motorized vehicle which crosses the Riverbed is in violation of the Protection of Navigable Waters Act.

A bridge MUST be there now, otherwise, every Vehicle which crosses (or is encouraged to cross
because they are entitled to cross, as a function of the Access Zone "as awarded to them",
is violating "The Act" as encouraged by the folks
"so entrusted" to prevent same,FOR the Min of Fisheries and Oceans

Any individual could make one phone call tomorrow
and, Make It Stop.(I work closely with OMNR/OP
and I confess, they have their hands full & Low
Budget & & & &.... See Les, I DO have a Heart)

Tell you what... Lets get through Christmas...
We will see if a sign goes up... with my gate?

Regards to All

Sundown



(Message edited by sundown on December 15, 2007)
 Link to this message

micmac
Member

Post Number: 21
Registered: 12-2005


Posted on Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 7:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Just a thought, but if Dept of Fisheries and Oceans starts getting complaints re: vehicles crossing the Sturgeon River bed, isn't this just giving them incentive to keep the logging bridge there permanently?

Mike
 Link to this message

sundown
Member

Post Number: 261
Registered: 04-2007
Posted on Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 8:39 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Micmac

See above post... re: "Island"

Regards

Sundown
 Link to this message

ghost_brigade
Member

Post Number: 63
Registered: 04-2004


Posted on Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 9:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Sundown

If your offer to replant ever became reality
I would be more than happy to help you and Roula.

Neil
 Link to this message

sundown
Member

Post Number: 262
Registered: 04-2007
Posted on Sunday, December 16, 2007 - 7:46 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

Ghost_Brigade

Thanks Neil. We are growing 2,000,000 Seedlings
this year. The plan is for all of them to end up
reforesting the Boreal somewhere.

Our goals are maps 41PNE, 41PNW, 42ASE, or 42ASW,
but the intent is to have them go to any Clearcut
we were unable to stop, and to negotiate larger
shoreline buffers for the affected waterways moving forward.

This "Island" of trees we are talking about is a
perfect candidate. It is 100% surrounded by Park
and Conservation Area, and it just makes sense to
have it included in the Protected Area Post-Cut,
I think.

As Chris says, that cut was part of the negotiated TLUP, so yeah, there is no stopping it.

I for one am very glad that a "Lasso" of Protected Areas was at least thrown around it back then... but, moving forward, Yes, we would be willing to have our Seedlings go there Post-Cut, if the area could be be negotiated to be
included in the Protected Area.

I suggest a Boreal Replant mixed seedling basis,
so that the resulting forest approximates a natural Boreal Forest.

Cheers

Sundown
 Link to this message

ghost_brigade
Member

Post Number: 64
Registered: 04-2004


Posted on Sunday, December 16, 2007 - 8:53 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

From caring hands they were sowed
a carpet of green that does grow
one day to be planted in some forest cleared
so many trees what a sight to behold!

Sundown just let me know when and where and I will see what I can do
 Link to this message

sundown
Member

Post Number: 263
Registered: 04-2007
Posted on Monday, December 17, 2007 - 7:14 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

Hi Neil and All

Nice Words, Neil

Our 2007/08 Seedlings will go into Refrigeration
late 2008, for Spring/Summer 2009 Reforestation.

We have a number of areas in mind, but if folks
have their own areas they wish to address, let us
know, and we will see what we can do.

Regards

Sundown
 Link to this message

chris
Member

Post Number: 67
Registered: 03-2006


Posted on Monday, December 17, 2007 - 8:29 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

Well, I didn't actually say that that, "there is no stopping it." Just that it would take a TLUP ammendment to do so, and that is totally possible. But obtaining such a concession might have consequences elsewhere.

I would prefer a gate and then a temporary bridge - if there has to be one. But how do they deal with the Land Use Permit Holder in there if fording the river is not allowed? I'm not totally convinced that the DFO over-rules here.

The TLUP is full of holes and issues - not all bad, from my own point of view, but issues like this will continue to come up. Surely the planners must have had some of these things in mind? I heard someone once call the whole thing a resource extraction plan in disguise.

Another example would be the exclusion of the Lower Nasmith Creek from the Pinetorch CR. The creek there is its own little ribbon of Land Use - slated for MINING. Along the creek? What are they gonna do - pan for gold? Don't think so... Curious - who has claims there I wonder and what have they found? What type of infrastructure will be required to get in there?

Isn't the Plan now overdue for review?

(Message edited by chris on December 17, 2007)

(Message edited by chris on December 17, 2007)
 Link to this message

sundown
Member

Post Number: 264
Registered: 04-2007
Posted on Monday, December 17, 2007 - 11:13 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

Chris

Here is one of my preferred sites... I use it very regularly, as it tells you Who Is Up To What. A very good tool if you "watch" specific geographical areas, and want to have a Finger on
the Pulse, vis-a-vis development.

You can see who is involved, when they are involved, and extrapolate What They Are Up To.

www.claimaps.mndm.gov.on.ca

then go into Map Search, and zoom...

Again, I reiterate that I am perfectly willing to
work with Core Members to address this issue.

Who else will participate???

As for the Land Use Permit Holder... he can Cache
on the other side, and wade across... just like
the Min of Fisheries and Oceans dictate (rightfully) to everyone else.

Sundown

(Message edited by sundown on December 17, 2007)

(Message edited by sundown on December 17, 2007)
 Link to this message

sundown
Member

Post Number: 266
Registered: 04-2007
Posted on Monday, December 17, 2007 - 8:50 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Update:

"Who Else Will Participate?"

Time to check-in Folks (Ha Ha).

It's All Good...

Sundown
 Link to this message

sundown
Member

Post Number: 268
Registered: 04-2007
Posted on Friday, December 21, 2007 - 7:07 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

Ghost_Brigade

I noted your Forestry prose on another thread...
I reckon its a piece which is good Food-for-Thought, and relevant here on this thread.

If you concur, please submit it here?

Happy Holidays Neil

Sundown

 Link to this message

ghost_brigade
Member

Post Number: 66
Registered: 04-2004


Posted on Friday, December 21, 2007 - 7:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

I concur Sundown

from Tales of an Empty Cabin by grey owl

"The function of the forest is not exclusively that of providing lumber, though judicious and properly controlled garnering of a reasonable crop is essential to industry. There are many reasons, aesthetic, economic and patriotic, for the perpetuation of large tracts of unspoiled, original timber - exclusive of re-forestation. This last scheme should be carried on intensively, and commercial concerns should be obliged (and many of them do, to their credit) to plant six or a dozen trees for everyone they cut, thus putting in their own crop, and so be made to keep their acquisitive eyes off some of Canada's remaining beauty spots, which will be irretrievably ruined if commerce has its way with them. There is plenty for all purposes, if patronage does not outdo honesty"

Merry Christmas
Neil

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