Despite cries from some area anglers and hunters to allow more “public input,” MNR District Manager Bill Darby said the consultation process to decide the fate of Trout Road will continue as it has so far–by the book.
“The consultation process is not a referendum. We need to hear as many viewpoints as possible but I can’t sit down with 300 people and expect to have a reasonable dialogue,” Darby said Monday.
In response to the protest outside the MNR office here last Monday and the continued buzz created by groups, such as the new Crossroute Forest Sportsman’s Alliance spearheaded by Jeff Steinke, Darby noted the lengthy consultation process for the Crossroute Forest Management Plan will continue as planned, culminating with a public display–and a 60-day review period–on March 5.
“We’re in the middle of it here. It’s often difficult to find out what the middle grounds is–that’s what we’re trying to do,” he remarked.
The consultation process, which has involved two representatives each from the North Western Ontario Tourism Association, the Fort Frances Sportsmen’s Club, and Abitibi-Consolidated, began in the spring of 1998.
Since the first meeting, four options (see sidebar) were devised as possible solutions to the problem–whether Trout Road, which currently is closed to vehicular access year-round, should be opened to varying degrees of access.
The most recent meeting (Jan. 22) has seen no decision made as to what to do about Trout Road but all parties have gone back to their respective groups and will return their proposals to Darby on Feb. 6.
The MNR then has 15 days after that to make a decision as to what the draft will say about Crossroute Forest Management Plan, including Trout Road. It then will be presented to the public March 5, marking the start of a 60-day review period before it’s finalized.
Darby noted that beyond the Trout Road issue, he suspects several MNR papers still in early draft form, including Fire Simulation Guidelines and a memorandum of understanding for negotiating Resource Stewardship Agreements (RSA), have been the cause of unfounded rumblings from groups such as the Alliance and Fort Frances Sportsmen’s Club.
The RSA is a process meant to formalize the relationship between resource-based tourism and resource industries, and to encourage the sharing of information and mutual problem-solving.
Including statements such as “access controls should be implemented as soon as the road is constructed to avoid development of traditional access,” the Alliance charged in a recent press release that under the memorandum, the RSA “virtually becomes a commodity that the recourse-based tourism holder dictates the form of access.”
“This will exclude many of the waters in our area, just because the tourist does not want to see your face. It is not about conservation, it is about privatizing the forests and waters,” it charged.
But Darby noted while the memorandum may be new, it’s aimed at other parts of Ontario where working relationships aren’t as good as they have been here.
“Discussions between forestry and tourism have occurred here for some time. Oddly enough, in some parts of the province, that has never happened,” he remarked.
“For this district, I don’t think it affects what’s been going on all along. But some may have seen the document and thought it’s something more than it is,” added Darby.
He also dismissed the notion the MNR was giving special attention to U.S. tourist operators with its consultation process.
“I know of eight tourist operators in that area. Six are long-time residents, with families that have been here up to 100 years. Two have come from the states but have lived here from 10-20 years,” he stressed.
“The ministry has to be careful in its decisions so as to not put seven or eight operators out of business–we’re trying to strike a balance,” added Darby, noting such operators provide economic spin-off to other local businesses.
And both the sportsmen’s club and the Alliance have spoken against fire simulation guidelines being developed to fulfill the Environmental Assessment Timber Management on Crown Lands.
“Provincially, the intention of those guidelines is to get the forestry industry to try and mimic the effects of forest fires,” said Darby, adding this is to done through select cuttings to encourage regeneration and protecting featured wildlife.
“And there has been talk of the possibility of road-use strategies as a tool in addressing some conflicts,” he added.
But passages from the first draft, such as references to roads as “an unnatural feature in the forest landscape,” and linking roads to expressions such as “environmental damage” and “ecological impact,” has sparked suspicion of further road closures from anglers and hunters.
“The guidelines emphasize that the people to be consulted are tourist operators and other commercial interest groups. The general public is left out,” the Fort Frances Sportsmen’s Club said in its January newsletter.
“The paper spells it out in bold statements: exclude the public from the forests,” echoed an Alliance press release.
The first meeting of the Alliance is slated tomorrow (Feb. 1) at 7 p.m. at the Elks Hall here. Nominations and elections will take place to form a public board and look further into these issues.
Fort Frances Times
Local News from Across the Rainy River District
