You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

10/04/2015 6:33 am  #1


Should historic site locations be shown on maps? Opinions sought

 
The official Algonquin Park map indicates the locations of some or most of the “historic zones” designated in the Management Plan. In those zones one would reasonably expect to find some remnant of the cultural past gradually changing with the environment.  "Jeff’s Map" includes the location of some historic sites, the locations of which he has determined from old maps. Now "Peek" is locating historic sites in his travels and recording the locations (with really good images) on his Tour du Park site.
There must be many historic sites in Algonquin Park. In this case I am not referring to older aboriginal sites, although some aboriginal (called archaeological in the Management Plan) sites date from the historic period. According to the Management Plan, historic sites not designated as historic zones will be protected as areas of concern.  That means they will be protected from logging activities or development.  Historic zones are also protected and some activities within them are restricted.
Generally, as part of their protection, the location of historic sites is not made known to the public. (That is not just Ontario Parks policy but also that of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, as far as I can determine).  Presumably there is a concern about the public being tempted to remove or disturb sites, especially those for which the location is publicly known.The Park Management Plan states:” The Provincial Parks Act prohibits the removal by the public of any artifact from the park or the disturbance of any site of archaeological or historical interest.” Archaeological sites and historic sites are protected respectively “until an examination and evaluation of the site is completed” or “pending thorough study and documentation of their significance.” Since there is no Park historian or Park archaeologist (nor has there been for the past 40 years) that protection appears to be perpetual.
Park staff cannot indicate around which bend in the river a canoeist will find a moose, bear or wolf. One expects to see an animal in the Park by chance.  Should it be the same with historic sites?
The question that follows is not intended as a criticism of any maps or websites on which historic site locations are currently indicated. I am just curious for my own reasons to know whether you would want to have locations of historic sites such as logging camps, old farms, etc. indicated on maps of the Park or would you prefer to find those sites by chance?  
Rory MacKay
 
 

 

10/04/2015 9:36 am  #2


Re: Should historic site locations be shown on maps? Opinions sought

My poorly educated opinion... it depends on the significance of the site. If it is significant, there is a defensible reason to protect it and location should not be publicized. If a significant site is mapped and well-known, there should be signs posted that the site shouldn't be disturbed. Or even fenced like some sites are in the states.

There may not be a great deal of new insight or information to be gained from studying some historic sites and disturbance from visitors will be unlikely since some will be overgrown and the new forest cover will tend to protect any artifacts underneath. But others may be vulnerable... I just don't know which ones they are.

Maybe a valid question for management... if any particular site is publicized, what is the potential for loss from visitors? Signage sure couldn't hurt if losses are possible.
 

 

10/04/2015 12:04 pm  #3


Re: Should historic site locations be shown on maps? Opinions sought

I think it really depends on what you call historic. There is a lot of what I would call trash in AP that a company would be fined for leaving behind now. I would prefer to see the park remove rather than preserve junk that matches what we have in our old barn.

But as a general idea I think we should be encouraging people to look at history on the ground not discouraging it by fencing it off or banning access. If we want young people to care about the past we need things like Peek's website.

Last edited by ChristineCanoes (10/04/2015 12:22 pm)

 

10/04/2015 12:36 pm  #4


Re: Should historic site locations be shown on maps? Opinions sought

Two reasons I like Algonquin are the presence of wildlife (moose, wolves, trout) and the sense of history. I love reading all the APP books and actively search out spots and routes mentioned in those books. Jeff's Map in particular is a great resource for exploring things in a historical context. Removing access to these points of interest would very much detract from my experience.

I agree sites that are historically significant AND have a high potential for impact should be protected. That said there are very few (if any) of these sorts of sites in APP. 

Those that are historically significant appear at most to be little more than mounds of dirt or clearings deep in the interior. They are hard to get to. There is little to see or touch once there. The potential for impact is pretty low.

Those with a high potential for impact are not all that significant. Much of this is what is marked on Jeff's Maps and Peeks site. I find it interesting and I make a point of visiting these sites. Fun to explore, but not something so unique that it should be fenced off or shielded from view. Deteriorating buildings, disappearing log slides, broken down machinery and 'historic' garbage dumps number in the thousands across Ontario. The value they offer is in the sense of wonder and appreciation that they awaken in the visitor.

I think shielding access to these sites would be pointless and would detract from the overall experience of the park.

 

10/05/2015 8:59 am  #5


Re: Should historic site locations be shown on maps? Opinions sought

Although Rory's question may have been about historic sites only, information on the location of prehistoric sites such as seasonal native camps may already be classified government information although I could be wrong on this (eg.information on the location of the seasonal camp on Rosebary). Other sites that are already known may be protected in other ways (eg. no camping now at the former public campsite at the outlet of Grand since it seems to have been a prehistoric seasonal camp).

More familar to me is classified information on natural areas... information on sensitive natural areas where public access could cause harm is now classified government info and a permit (or permission) to access that information is now needed.

And IIRC, in APP, a measure taken to protect nature reserve zones from recreational damage has been to stop developing new campsites in them.

There may be historic sites that also deserve a higher level of protection from recreational impacts... the experts in the field should be able to make a valid judgement on which need protection most... I'll be the first to admit I have no expertise here.

 

 

10/05/2015 9:49 am  #6


Re: Should historic site locations be shown on maps? Opinions sought

Personally I love seeing the historic sites marked, I enjoy stopping at them and seeing whatever remains are there. The big draw is the old timber structures and anything before the early age of gasoline engines. It seems difficult to know exactly what you are visiting for most of these historic sites, I haven't read as much of the literature as MartinG and Peek obviously have.
 
I understand your position Rory, if I'm not assuming incorrectly, that historic sites should be protected by not listing them. I understand that there is a very real danger that some yahoo would come along and destroy or remove items. The anchor on Burntroot Lake is a prime example of this. But, as it stands right now absolutely nothing is being done and the items you are wanting to protect are rotting away. In another 10, 20, 50 years there will be nothing left. The alligator on Burntroot is a prime example of that.
 
I have travelled extensively through Algonquin Park with "old timers" that have been visiting the park for over 50 years. The stories they tell and their recollection of historic sites is unbelievable. Unfortunately what they say at every site they've revisited after a long period of time is along the lines of "this used to be...." and "it's too bad this has rotted away to nothing". I think Jeffrey, Peek and anyone taking pictures and writing trip logs is doing a great thing because it's see it now or never see it again.

 

 

10/05/2015 10:10 am  #7


Re: Should historic site locations be shown on maps? Opinions sought

"Hiding" information never works out in the long run. So yes historic sites should be publicly acknowledged. There may be a case for clean up of some locations as ChristineCanoes suggests, or it may be more valuable to preserve the sites to make the point that Algonquin today is much closer to 'wilderness' than it was even a few decades ago. 

The software industry learned a long time ago that depending on obscurity is never a good approach to security. The same is true for history. 

 

10/05/2015 8:18 pm  #8


Re: Should historic site locations be shown on maps? Opinions sought

Provincial law prohibits archaeological sites from being disturbed other than by a licensed archaeologist in the course of a permitted archaeological assessment, that's provincewide and not a matter of park policy. As for the question of publicity, I think for archaeological sites that have been idenitfied but not fully assessed or assessed and conserved in situ, the general best practice is not to share their locations with the public. I'm talking here about where, for example, a pre-European hunting camp has been identified and there is a high likelihood of tool fragments etc just below the ground. Archaeologists keep such locations under wraps to avoid Indiana Jones wannabes trying to take home an arrowhead or whatever... both to prevent the items being lost to research, and to prevent the potential desecration of human remains or sacred sites.

When it comes to "above-ground" cultural heritage resources, such as the various pictographs and camboose camp remains Peek and Jeff document, my feeling is quite different. The appeal to thieves seems much lower, and the educational value higher. The way the Ontario Heritage Act and Provincial Policy Statement deal with built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes is all about encouraging communities to identify and celebrate their local examples, as opposed to the strict definitions and "keep off" approach they take towards archaeological resources. The main value of "above ground" cultural heritage resources is, I think, maintaining the public's connection to the history of the place. Keeping resources a secret wouldn't help that. And while you could rely on canoeists coming across things by chance like a moose or bear, the educational value is much higher when there are interpretive materials (official or unofficial) to give historical context.

If anything I think the park should do more to highlight and interpret its heritage resources, the way they do at The Massasauga with the Calhoun Lodge and Baker Homestead (since I was just there yesterday).

Please read everything in this post as a PERSONAL opinion and not a professional one.

 

10/06/2015 8:50 am  #9


Re: Should historic site locations be shown on maps? Opinions sought

Here's a historic site in the park, Basin Depot, where excavation pits were dug and artifacts recovered... other sites, depot farms, camps, etc may also yield something similar.... (eg Galeairy, Bonnechere)

http://www.apaontario.ca/Resources/Documents/APA%20Ocassional%20Paper%20in%20Archaeology%20No.%2001.pdf



 

Last edited by frozentripper (10/06/2015 8:55 am)

 

10/14/2015 7:18 am  #10


Re: Should historic site locations be shown on maps? Opinions sought

"Should historic site locations be shown on maps? Opinions sought"

Absolutely! I have enjoyed viewing many such sites as have others.

Goal of Algonquin Provincial Park is:"To provide protection of natural and cultural features, continuing opportunities for a diversity of low-intensity recreational, wilderness, and natural environment experiences; and within this provision continue and enhance the Park's contribution to the economic, social and cultural life of the region." , p.6Algonquin Park has five objectives. They are:
[list=1]
[*]To protect provincially significant elements of the natural and cultural landscape of Algonquin Park;
[*]To provide outdoor recreation opportunities ranging from high-intensity day use to low intensity wilderness experiences;
[*]To provide opportunities for exploration and appreciation of the outdoor natural and cultural heritage of Algonquin Park;
[*]To provide Ontario's residents and out-of-province visitors with opportunities to discover and experience the distinctive regions of Algonquin Park; and
[*]To practise sustainable resource management in Algonquin Park for the long-term health of the Park's ecosystems and to provide recreational, cultural, and economic benefits.
[/list]
Thanks, Frozen Tripper for posting the PDF.  Well done, Rory!

Last edited by Tripper_Scott (10/14/2015 7:21 am)

 

Board footera

LNT Canada is a national non-profit organization dedicated to promoting responsible outdoor recreation through education, research and partnerships.