Balance needed

Dear editor:
In recent articles in the media, two separate but related issues have been reported in an inaccurate and confusing way.
One issue is the attempt by the Fort Frances Sportsmen’s Club to have the Trout Road opened up so the general public can have access to a huge area which is now used primarily by forestry, tourism, and their non-resident customers, and some other groups.
The Trout Road has always been a contentious issue. Over the years, locals have employed different methods of attempting to have it opened but have failed.
Last year, the sportsmen’s club decided to become involved. We did our homework and found that by following the Forest Management Plan proceeding, we could be involved every five years when the plan comes up for review.
Last April, we brought our concerns to the attention of the MNR, and subsequently met with the district manager to express our reasons for opening the road. Nothing was resolved at that meeting.
In August, our club and the other groups involved in the issue, tourism and Abitibi, made presentations to the Natural Resources Advisory Committee (NRAC), which is a local citizens’ committee which advises the D.M. on forestry matters. They came up with four options, which were on display at the Crossroute Forest Management Plan open house in September.
Through the local media, the MNR invited the public to attend this open house and to make comment on any aspect of the forestry plan. They could comment on the allocation, silviculture, regeneration, sensitive areas, closed roads, etc.
Members of our club attended in large numbers (probably 150-160) to comment on the various parts of the plans. The Trout Road was their main concern.
Comments were overwhelming in favour of opening the Trout Road system. But after the open house, the groups were no closer to resolving the road issue than before.
The next step in the Issue Resolution Procedure of the FMP was to have the groups with opposing views meet with the MNR to attempt to negotiate a solution; thus, the meeting on Monday, Jan. 22 where the orderly demonstration mentioned in the media took place.
Obviously, it was not a secret meeting. Nor was it a closed meeting. Had any other individual or group taken time to follow the procedures laid out, they could have been at the table, too.
While the negotiations are to have the Trout Road opened, a balance between commercial interests and recreation activities on the one hand and the conservation of lakes, forests, and wildlife on the other must be achieved.
Whatever proposals come out of these negotiations must be reviewed by the district manager and modified or changed, or accepted as is. The public will have input at the open house on March 5.
The other issue related in the media last week refers to the recent government proposals to have most logging roads closed to the public. The proposals, “Forest Management Guidelines for Retaining Forest Ecosystem Structure and Function: The Fire Simulation Guidelines,” are published on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry (#PBOOE7004).
Another document that is of great concern to anglers and hunters, and to the public, is “Framework for Negotiating Resource Stewardship Agreements: A Tourism and Forest Industry Memorandum of Understanding.” It’s also posted on the EBR registry (#PBOOE4001).
Many members have written letters to the government opposing the proposals. Our club newsletter has a few more details.
The demonstration Jan. 22 drew attention to some of these issues and to the fact the Ontario government’s support of commercial interests affects us here in the north.
Further discussion of these issues will take place at the Fort Frances Sportsmen’s Club annual meeting tonight at 7 p.m. at the Elks Hall (this is a member’s only meeting).
Yours in conservation,
Henry Miller