Oct 18, 2001
Comparing Park and Conservation Reserve - Dana Dvorak's letter to cottagers,
an earlier version of the "new_park_vs_conservation_reserve.pdf"
stated above.
parkvsconservation.pdf
same_different.pdf |
Nov 29, 2001
Hello, as you know some cottagers are opposing the park designation. It is a long story and I will try to provide a brief outline of it in the Newsletter I am working on. The forwarded document has been prepared by Janice Griffith, the Township's Deputy Reeve and a member of the Local Stakeholders Committee.
Briefly: last August the Council gave its support to the LCS's recommendations, and submitted to the Committee its comments and recommendations. I am attaching those as well. I liked them very much. Later, on November 6th a deputation of some cottagers pertaining to represent NORKLA (earlier name NKLA) attended the Council's meeting and forced the Council to withdraw its approval.
In her document Janice explains where the opposing group went wrong and why.
Dana Dvorak
janic_griffith_letter.htm |
|
Feb 19, 2001
Last night there was a meeting of the presidents of the North Kawartha cottage associations (former BACCA). The purpose of the meeting was to endorse a report (prepared for the group by its two members) that will be presented to the Stakeholders Committee by the end of February. The focus of the report was a proposal on the management structure of the new "park". It seems that the Stakeholders Committee has heard a lot of complaints but nothing positive and constructive. Because it focuses on the management structure the report only touches on some of the cottagers' concerns.
Leaving the meeting I came to the conclusion that we need to prepare our own presentation. The Committee may have had been flooded with negative comments, worries, etc. but we do not know what these covered. Our lake, with its proximity to Crab Lake is open to escalated use and abuse. If the area is established as a provincial park it will be advertised which of course will result in increased numbers of visitors. But will there be enough will and structure to control the influx? Yesterday I heard that there is an idea floating about to create ATV trails in the area between Anstruther Lake and Wolf Lake!
I have started putting together a paper, if you are willing to help, please get back to me.
I am attaching a copy of the BACCA's report.
Dana Dvorak President, Wolf Lake Cottage Association
Attached is:
A Locally Sustainable Management Strategy Of Crown Land Access, Protection, Maintenance & Control For The Kawartha Highlands Signature Site ** DRAFT ** Submitted to the Kawartha Highlands Local Stakeholder Committee
mgmtplan.rtf |
Feb 26, 2001
Attached is a draft of a submission that I plan to present to the Local Stakehodlers Committee. It is an effort of a few people who volunteered their time after my call for help. I need your comments on it by Wednesday morning.
If you do not want to read the documents, please make an effort to answer the questions: While you ponder over these please remember that once the park/reserve is advertised people will start coming in. Will they bring boats, PWCs, ATVs with them? Will they camp next to your property? Can this be stopped?
1. Do you think that we should allow only small boats on the lake?
2. Do you think that there should be no PWCs on the lake?
3. Do you think that there should be no snowmobile trails in the areas where there are cottages?
4. Do you think that recreational vehicles like motorbikes, dirt bikes and ATVs should not be allowed in the park/reserve at all?
5. Do you think that recreational vehicles like motorbikes, dirt bikes and ATV's should be allowed but away from the populated areas?
6. Do you agree that there should be no camp sites on our lake?
wolf_lake_submission.pdf |
| Apr 8 ,2002
I have received inquiries from some of you about G.B. Faulkner, the author of so many e-mail messages. Mr. Faulkner owns a commercial property on Lake Catchacoma and is opposing the new recommended provincial park. I am told that he has applied for a permit to build a road to his property a number of times but was always turned down. Having a park in the area would end all his hopes of ever having a road and developing the property.
I do not know where Mr. Faulkner got our e-mail addresses from. Probably from the same person who gave him our latest Newsletter.
Dana Dvorak |
| Apr 18, 2002
For those of you who have been receiving e-mail messages from Mr. Faulkner and probably received his latest missile yesterday, I need to place it in a context.
You may recall my last e-mail in which I explained who Gary Faulkner is. In summary, Mr. Faulkner owns a commercial property on Lake Catchacoma. He has made numerous attempts to build a road to his property but was always turned down. He knows that if the park is put in place, his efforts to build that road will end as the Park Ontario policy does not allow any new roads in the parks.
Mr. Faulkner called me about 10 days ago because he knew I was not supportive of the actions of the Stakeholders Group of North Kawartha (you may recall that this is the group of people who want the area to be designated Enhanced Managament Area rather than an operating provincial park). He has broken up with the group and was looking for new alliances. I listened to him, I also opened, printed and read all the documentation he had sent. But he did not provide me with any information that would make me change my belief that in all this the park designation will protect the interests of the Wolf Lake cottagers best. To accommodate him and other cottagers who may wish to build new roads I came up with a proposal that when the park is planned buffer/utility zones be created around those cottage communities that would specifically request them. (These buffer zones are a dangerous concept because thay would remain Crown Land and would not be under the jurisdiction of Parks Ontario. In result, they could be freely used, without any restrictions, by the visiting public.) And I promised that once the process of park planning starts I would advocate such a concession. It is quite possible that such a request could be granted because the Provincial Parks Act does allow for some exemptions and special treatment in individual parks.
This did not provide Mr. Faulkner with the comfort he needs and he continues to look for alliances with whatever means, it seems. He probably realizes that it is unlikely that the park would grant him such a buffer zone because it could not allow any new commercial activities in the area.
I hope you understand why I am so exhausted and why I need you opinions.
Dana Dvorak |
| Apr 24, 2002
Hello, everybody: I have received a couple of e-mail messages exchanged between G. Faulkner and Mr. Kearney with not so nice references to me, the president of the Cachacoma Lake Association and other supporters of the park designation. I trust that you will agree with me that at this point it would be very unhealthy to continue this online going back and forth. The Executive believes that the AGM where everybody can participate will be a much better forum. I believe I have outlined the options and their pros and cons sufficiently both in the Newsletter and in my last e-mails. Should this not be the case, we shall have the opportunity to clear up any confusion at the June AGM.
However, there are two issues raised by Mr. Kearney that you may want me to respond to. One is the issue of the mandate and the other the opinion survey of the cottagers on Anstruther Lake.
The Executive believes that it has the mandate to support, on behalf of our association, the park designation. This is based on two facts: (1) the original position was arrived at by a large number of the cottagers who helped, via e-mail, to prepare our February 2001 submission to the Local Stakeholders Committee; (2) the membership was informed, on an ongoing basis of the new developments and the actions the Executive was taking; no objections were ever voiced. Therefore we shall continue to maintain the position taken in the beginning unless a different position is formulated at the June AGM.
With respect to the recent survey of the Anstruther Lake cottagers as far as I know no results have been communicated to Anstruther Lake cottagers. To place the results cited in Mr. Kearney's e-mail in the right context please note that there are 275 cottages on the lake. Below are the questions the survey asked:
Question 1: I agree with the Local Stakeholders Committee and their recommendations that the Kawartha Highland Signature site be designated as a “fully operational provincial park”
Question 2: I agree with the Lake Associations and Local Interest Groups whose aims are outlined in the letter to Mr. Snobelen dated Jan. 15/2002 requesting an environmental and economic feasibility study before any designation is finalized.
Please note the wording of Question 2. I expect, based on formulation of the questions asked, that many cottagers would answer “Yes” to the second question because who would be against the feasibility study? Which means they have to give a negative answer to Question 1. A skillful manipulation worthy of a politician! In addition, not all lake associations agree with the actions of the group which authored the letter to Minister Snobelen; in most instances they do not even know that such a letter exists and that their officers purport to represent them in the group opposing the park.
I shall follow this up and when I know the official results I shall share them with you.
|
| WLCA Newsletter - Spring 2002 - The President's
Report - 2001 AGM - new initiatives - Park Questionnaire
docs/spring2002_newsletter.pdf
or view the html page
newsletter_spring_2002.htm
|
Jun 17, 2002
Hello everybody: The weather behaves strangely; it feels more like April than the middle of June and it has made me worried about our AGM. As a result, we shall hold this AGM in Apsley's Legion Hall located just North of the IGA on the same side of the road. The date and time remain the same.
A question has been raised asking if those of us who will not attend the meeting will be able to vote by proxy. The purpose of this meeting is to provide our members with a better understanding of the issues and solutions and decide, as a group, and after a proper discussion, what steps we wish to take. It is not possible to know, ahead of such a meeting, how the discussion is going to proceed and what motions we will be voting on. Consequently, there cannot be a proxy vote.
Please see the agenda outlined below:
1. KAWARTHA HIGHLANDS SIGNATURE SITE: THE PARK OR????? (facilitated by D. Marschke); 1.a. Lands for Life: its history, process and the outcomes (Dana D.);
1.b. Summary of the issues raised by the park opponents and overview of offered options (Dana D.); 1.c. Local Stakeholders Committee (Sissy Tanner); 1.d. Q and A (Sissy Tanner); 1.e. Discussion; 1.f. Motions arising from the discussion, the vote; 2. REPORTS FROM THE EXECUTIVE 3. WLCA DIRECTORY 4. PLANS FOR NEXT YEAR 5. OTHER BUSINESS
Dana Dvorak |
| Jun 21, 2002
Paul, I have drafted a reply to all these suggestions and will send it tomorrow. I am at the cottage and do not have a complete set of the WLCA e-mail addresses. Please bear with me until tomorrow. Dana.
"Paul St. Germain/Markham/IBM" wrote:
> Dear Dana, > > First, we would like to thank you and the others who are taking the > time and effort to keep the rest of us aware and informed of the ongoing > situation. This is obviously an important issue, and the outcome will > affect us for a very long time. > > Regarding who should be invited to attend the AGM, our opinion is that > we should have representation from all points of view for the discussion > of the information. This would include Mr. Faulkner. Also, has anyone > invited Kim Dunford, who also appears to have a stake in the > proceedings? Note that being part of the discussion does not include > voting rights. > > Once we have discussed the issues, we should have one, united WLCA > position. Due the the effect this decision will have on our future on > our lake, all WLCA members should have the opportunity to vote on our > stance, even if they cannot attend the meeting. This can be achieved > either by proxy or by write in ballot. > > Paul and Jane St. Germain |
| Jun 23, 2002
Hello, again:
I will start by inviting you to keep in mind that half of our members do not have e-mail accounts and that the upcoming meeting is the proper forum for dealing with the issues the e-mail exchange has recently raised.
The three suggestions put forward recently should take a form of motions and be put, after our discussion is finished, to a vote at the AGM. That includes the following requests:
(1) That we withdraw our support of the park designation;
(2) That we invite other people and groups to speak to us at a follow up meeting.
There have been requests to invite G. Faulkner to our meeting. But if we invite G. Faulkner we would definitely need to invite a person from the MNR to clearly explain current or planned MNR's policies and guidelines that a lay person like G. Faulkner may misinterpret or interpret in a wrong context.
As you know, G. Faulkner is not the only person who opposes the park designation. He just found a way, still mysterious to me, how to communicate with us and use our association to advance his agenda. To have a full representation of the opposing views we would need to invite Local Stakeholders Groups of Kawartha Highlands to hear what proposals they have in order to hear what solutions they propose.
We should ask cottagers from the already established parks to tell us about their experience. Hearing a presentation by Parks Ontario about its policies would be helpful too. Some of us may also want to hear from people and groups which support the park because they may help us get a better understanding of why other people think a park is the best fit. (A cottager from Anstruther Lake called it "a gift" in one of the e-mail exchanges.)
We may also want to ask cottagers from Cachacoma Lake why they do not wish to have a road. We should talk to the cottagers from Anstruther Lake who have 25 new condo units to look forward to; or cottagers from Stoney Lake who are watching what is happening on Anstruther Lake worried sick about a number of properties on their lake that are zoned "commercial".
These are the steps that would need to be taken if you do not want to hear other people than Sissy Tanner and Dana Dvorak. This is not an agenda for one meeting. (It took me countless days, hundreds of telephone conversations, hours of Internet research, a number of library visits, etc., etc. to research this issue.) My intent is to offer you a thorough examination of the park designation and what impact it may have on us, and to outline for you, without any prejudice, the proposals put forward by the people who oppose the park designation. I was hoping that we can decide right at this meeting whether the park designation is good for our lake or not. I can see that this is not possible and that is why I suggest that we plan a follow up meeting where we shall hear the parties I have outlined above. Should that be the case, I will suggest that we form a committee which will prepare this meeting. I'll provide the names, telephone numbers and the documentation I have gathered.
(3) That we allow proxy vote.
If you still have it, please bring along any documentation that has been sent to you, namely the Draft Recommendations of the Local Stakeholders Committee.
Dana Dvorak |
|
|
