Hey Methye... It seems that once John Winters retired as Superintendent of Algonquin Park, the voice of ABR slowly became ignored.  We put in many hours on behalf of those that use the back country but the powers that be did not seem to care any longer. Eventually it was quite evident we were just talking to a wall and ABR was dissolved.

Sean

 

Sean and Methye... just a quick comment on lack of responsiveness wrt ABR and at the same time to Algonquin Eco Watch which also disbanded for similar reasons IIRC. Both the Environmental Commissioner and the Auditor General of Ontario have commented that MNR is and was underfunded and understaffed, so don't be surprised if they weren't responding much. They likely didn't have the staff and the funds to deal with it. I've seen this myself inside MNR, overworked staff lacking the time to deal with public requests on various issues... lots of complaints resulting. Details are available in the ECO's and AGO's reports along with other issues being discussed here.

PS... it's always been interesting that, although by law, Ontario parks are "dedicated to the people of Ontario", there has never been the opportunity for Ontario residents to formally comment on whether logging should be allowed in APP. MNR may already know how that kind of vote is going to turn out, if past comments were any indication. Anyway, chaos or order, unresponsive or attentive, we'll see how the new administration develops as those $6 billion in cuts are carried out.

Just like to clarify something that John alluded to. The advisory group that I participated in did not discuss whether logging should be allowed in the park.

Rather, I was a representative of recreationalists' concerns regarding the impact of logging operations on their backcountry experience, in an advisory group which was a prerequisite of the AFA's designation as a sustainable forestry operation under the Canadian Standards Association. That participation started in 2006 (as the operator of this website) and continued through to 2014. My participation in the advisory committee from 2012 to 2014 were as a formal representative of the ABR (Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists). From 2008 onward, the ABR also made numerous forestry-related submissions to the AFA.

For more archived details, please refer to ... http://www.algonquinadventures.com/forest/ForestIndex.htm  .. and .. http://www.algonquinadventures.com/ABRarchived/index.html

Rob, some good comments on these issues copied below and I agree that the Southern Ontario population is growing so something needs to be done to ensure the well-being of APP.

...

In contrast to forestry which is consistently managed, the # of visitors to Algonquin (and any park readily accessible from southern Ontario) continues to increase with some very noticeable impacts on the park environment. While I think that the park can be managed to handle the impact of increased visitor #'s, I would also say that this is the biggest risk to the ecological, cultural and historic integrity of the park. 

An additional opportunity for public input is through the periodic reviews and updates of the Park Management plans which are required for all Ontario Provincial Parks. A link to the current Algonquin Park Management Plan can be found on the Friends of Algonquin 

...

First, wrt the risks to the integrity of the park, I'd argue that the impacts from recreational use such as permitted canoetripping, camping and hiking are far less than the impacts related to logging and the roadbuilding & road network that results from logging. But never mind what I say, the more rigorous way to determine what's impacting the park would be to carry out a formal environmental assessment, with experienced scientists and managers defining the problems, including those with a background in park management, ecology, natural areas conservation, forestry, fisheries, wildlife, recreation, and everything else relevant.

There is a big "if" here... if everybody could agree to accept and implement the recommendations from an EA (something tells me not everybody will), an EA could be done. And another big "if"... an EA could be done if there is the capacity in the Ontario budget to pay for it... there is an expense and the current cost-cutting administration might not allow it.

Another item wrt risks to the integrity of APP... the current Ontario Parks Acts states this management principle below as the first priority... (I've bolded the key phrase, basically, maintaining ecological integrity means that the park remains in it's natural state). 


Planning and management principles

3. The following principles shall guide all aspects of the planning and management of Ontario’s system of provincial parks and conservation reserves:

1. Maintenance of ecological integrity shall be the first priority and the restoration of ecological integrity shall be considered.

2. Opportunities for consultation shall be provided.  2006, c. 12, s. 3.

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06p12


Wrt your other comment on the park management plan and review... the current park plan was written in 1998 and does not reflect the principles and objectives of the newer Parks Act passed in 2007 IIRC... so the most significant management principle, to manage for ecological integrity, isn't actually written in yet. This is the year for review, 20 years after 1998 and it'll be interesting to see how things change given the need to adapt to the new Parks Act and the changing situation in Southern Ontario..

The purpose and objectives for APP management are stated clearly on the APP website, as well as in the above Parks Act page... the management plan will also need to be reviewed with these worked into the new plan revision.

Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act

Purpose

The purpose of this Act is to permanently protect a system of provincial parks and conservation reserves that includes ecosystems that are representative of all of Ontario's natural regions, protects provincially significant elements of Ontario's natural and cultural heritage, maintains biodiversity and provides opportunities for compatible, ecologically sustainable recreation. 2006, c. 12, s. 1.


Objectives of Provincial Parks

The following are the objectives in establishing and managing provincial parks:

To permanently protect representative ecosystems, biodiversity and provincially significant elements of Ontario's natural and cultural heritage and to manage these areas to ensure that ecological integrity is maintained.

To provide opportunities for ecologically sustainable outdoor recreation opportunities and encourage associated economic benefits.

To provide opportunities for residents of Ontario and visitors to increase their knowledge and appreciation of Ontario's natural and cultural heritage.

To facilitate scientific research and to provide points of reference to support monitoring of ecological change on the broader landscape. 2006, c. 12, s. 2 (1).

http://www.algonquinpark.on.ca/visit/park_management/ppcr-act.php



Readers can decide for themselves how logging and other impacts fit into the above.

I've had it for now, too much time spent on this, way too long-winded... this has been going on for a long time and there's been plenty left out in all the complexity. As always, it's be interesting to see how things unfold with time. And there might be a better APP resulting if something is done.... anyway, we'll see so hopefully this discussion carries on as things develop. Cheers.

Last edited by frozentripper (6/23/2018 7:42 am)

Just a last comment on how things might move forward with any concerns wrt management of the park...  as stated previously the Parks Act does require management plan review every twenty years and this year is it (20 years after 1998). There may be the option to assess current management direction through a  Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves (Class EA-PPCR). 

The Class EA-PPCR provides a way to assess management direction wrt environmental impacts and level of public concern over negative effects, and if the level of public concern is high, an EA may be done after the new management plan is proposed. And if there's enough public input during consultation. The proposed plan can then be modified and approved for implementation.

The requirement for consultation, as a fundamental principle to guide all management and planning, is written into the Parks Act, together with the other requirement to maintain ecological integrity as stated above. So consultation as things move forward with planning should be made available since it's a legal requirement, and concerns should sent to the minister in letters, or during the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) notification whenever that does occur.

This isn't going to happen overnight... as always, improvements and reduction of negative effects take years before implementation actually happens on the ground... eg. the increased APP land areas protected from logging over time since the 1974 master plan, with the most recent being the "Lghtening the Ecological Footprint of Logging" plan amendment, finalized several years ago. 

 

John, I hope your opinion of 'not standing by idly while there is underlying anti-logging comments....' remains the same when people make comments in reply to underlying pro-logging comments? Is that a fair assumption? It seems only logical to hear the extreme from both sides - and we've definitely heard yours. Since logging discussion are now on the table here at AA, I suspect we will be reading a lot of both pro and anti logging posts and comments - esp. around the time the AFA changes their harvest schedule drastically from their initial release.

Just a quick note to say that more discussion may develop once my book on the history of the Park (and changing perspectives) is published by The Friends of Algonquin Park. It is soon going to print, and I hope it will be available at Loggers Day and Meet the Researcher Day in July. The title will be "Algonquin Park -- A Place Like No Other". I do not yet know the cost. It will be available on-line at the Friends website as well as at their stores at the Visitor Centre and the Logging Museum.
Roderick (Rory) MacKay

Opinion piece from the Toronto Star... Stephen Harper tactics being adopted in Queen's Park, so that journalists will not be able to report on government initiatives with ministers and staff being muzzled.. Information released to the public will need to be cleared first by Ford's central office. Bottom line might be that government staff may be even less responsive to public needs, but we'll see.

In related news, the firing of Ontario's chief scientist could be some sign of what's to come. Meet the researcher day could be interesting if you're government staff seeing things from the inside.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Doug Ford steals a page from Stephen Harper on control

By BOB HEPBURN

For all his populist talk about being “For the People,” Doug Ford is proving in his very first days in office as Ontario premier that he’s really all about seizing power and control for himself.

Indeed, in a series of revealing moves, Ford has shown he intends to copy the controversial path taken by former prime minister Stephen Harper by placing total control over all aspects of his government — from staff appointments to media contacts — in his own central office.

So far, Ford has decreed that his office will appoint chiefs of staff for all cabinet ministers, will hire top aides such as legislative affairs assistants and press secretaries for ministers, will provide no daily schedule of his meetings and will censor access by cabinet ministers, backbench MPPs and government employees to journalists.

These are all moves that could ultimately infuriate top ministers in Ford’s new cabinet and frustrate public servants trying to carry out their normal duties, just as happened in Ottawa during Harper’s contentious term in power.

...

Jenni Byrne, another former Harperite who also worked on the campaign, is Ford’s new principal secretary. She will oversee the strict approach on central control. It’s a role that apparently suits her. As Harper’s deputy chief of staff, Byrne helped enforce the culture of fear that permeated the Harper government. In 2015, the Globe and Mail branded her as “Harper’s enforcer” and described her as “the most powerful woman in Ottawa.”

In Ottawa, Harper implemented a tough communications regime that muzzled scientists, blocked bureaucrats from organizing or speaking at public events and often barred elected Tory MPs from speaking to journalists.

Even veteran cabinet ministers had to suffer the humiliation of having to get approval from a 20-something press assistant selected by Harper’s office before they could speak to a reporter about a policy issue in their own area of responsibility.

...

Also, Ford has abandoned the traditional practice of releasing the premier’s daily schedule of public appearances. On the surface it seems like a small thing, but it’s a sign that Ford, despite his rhetoric, isn’t serious about being transparent and accountable with the public.

In addition, Ford is continuing his election strategy of stiff-arming most journalists, refusing virtually all interviews and failing to hold a post-inauguration press conference, instead speaking only to Ford Nation Live, the Tories’ own private online news outlet.


https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/07/04/doug-ford-steals-a-page-from-stephen-harper-on-control.html

algonquinarchaeologist wrote:

There are strongly held opinions in favour of having a managed forest and opinions against having a managed forest, just as there have been since Algonquin Park was founded. It has been suggested that the well-managed portion of a multiple use park under the Algonquin Forestry Authority combined with almost 50% of the land reserved for other purposes and activities, including recreation throughout, provides a considerable compromise and a huge improvement beyond conditions in 1893 or even in 1965. While modern forest harvesting does not and cannot "Leave No Trace," (roads, slash, soil disturbance) neither would the natural disturbances, such as fire, that forest harvesting simulates. The bottom line is that people (forest workers, service industry workers, physicians and nurses, politicians, etc.) in eastern Ontario still need to put food on the table. Ontario consumers still want and use wood products. It is a fact of geography that the Algonquin uplands and Petawawa sand plains produce some of the finest forest products in Ontario. It is also a fact of economy that such economic activities as mining, snowmobiling, and many activities associated with tourism (lodges, hunt camps, fishing camps) are excluded, along with the associated jobs) within the almost 8000 square kilometres of land in eastern Ontario that is Algonquin Park and a buffer surrounding it. At least the forest industry is providing jobs based on a renewable resource. To remove a cornerstone of the local economy might not be ethical, even if for some it would be desired
 

Very well put Rory!