I've talked to several road-based outfitters who all say there is lots of land and lakes to be shared by everyone including the public which owns the land, they say their business opportunities and the opportunity to expand are being stifled and smothered because just a few remote-based outfitters have a virtual MNR managed monopoly over thousands of our best lakes. That their clients, like the public are being subjected to heavy fines etc if they venture onto some of these lakes which are 30 or more km long…simply "to promote remote tourism values" . These remote tourism values according to a NOTO document means being able to charge up to three times more than their road-based counterparts.

I'd like to hear more on this issue.

Hey username, if you liked that one then check this one out, especially chapter 3.0 to 3.4, pages 12 to 19, paying close attention to page 18, left hand column where the MNR says it may be necessary to tell the public the access restrictions are to protect the natural resources,( in my book thats called lying). http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/STEL0…..179112.pdf.

 See all the TIPs where the MNR describes how to tear up roads & bridges, even offers advice on how to word signs….all this, if according to the beginning of 3.0, an outfitter communicates to the MNR that he or she needs remoteness.

Under acknowlegements you'll see where no members of the public were present…and the MNR says they have not conspired behind the public's back, that there have been no back room deals with NOTO.

timber said:

I've talked to several road-based outfitters who all say there is lots of land and lakes to be shared by everyone including the public which owns the land, they say their business opportunities and the opportunity to expand are being stifled and smothered because just a few remote-based outfitters have a virtual MNR managed monopoly over thousands of our best lakes. That their clients, like the public are being subjected to heavy fines etc if they venture onto some of these lakes which are 30 or more km long…simply "to promote remote tourism values" . These remote tourism values according to a NOTO document means being able to charge up to three times more than their road-based counterparts.

I'd like to hear more on this issue.

Most of this crap started in the early 1980's in the Wawa District with the developement of the Wawa Dist Tourism Strategy then it was revamped and included in the Wawa Dist DLUG later. The "Tourism Amendment" to the (Wawa DLUG) district landuse guidelines in itself was larger than the entire DLUG. Do you remember "Lands for Life" from Mr Mike Harris well thats when alot of this tourism monopoly really took off.

There was a very large and influential Tourism presence around the living legacy round table meetings that went from town to town and after they helped the harris government push threw the lands for life initiative they reeped the rewards.

The Ontario living legacy document that the Tourism folks help craft had all kinds of protectionist measures in it that would allow them to protect there investments and businesses by "Protecting Tourism Values" in Forest Management Plans ..Resource Extraction Plans Mining..Recreation Management Plans…ect..ect..

At the same time this was happening(Living Legacy) the Tourism Folks even helped to craft an entire Tourism Policy for the Ontario government "Management Guidelines for Resource Based Tourism in Ontario" in which they got the right to basically control planning of our resources with the forest companies with the blessing of our provincial government. "Prior to that being in place the Tourism people could basically hold up every single Forest Management Plan in the province by requesting that the plans be "bumped up" until they got what they wanted.

Not what was best for all concerned  …"What They Wanted".  Whats wrong with this picture?