• Happy Birthday, Babe Ruth (1895-1948)! ⚾🏠🏃‍♂️

WCPP threatened with motorized access

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would love to read how this works out with time and find out who's messing up, and how. I have some related stories to tell myself but this is the internet unfortunately. Trouble is, there are government lawyers around with piles of money to spend and worse, there may be a union involved.
 
I would love to read how this works out with time and find out who's messing up, and how. I have some related stories to tell myself but this is the internet unfortunately. Trouble is, there are government lawyers around with piles of money to spend and worse, there may be a union involved.
The sort of thing that calls for a camping outing in Red Lake...in person campfire
 
I hesitate to comment since there's so much I don't know about what's going on but I don't understand the relationship between hauling in supplies by snowmobile to build a new structure and the safety of people who will be staying at the cabin in winter, both of which you've stressed. You said the trails already exist and I can't imagine the Park saying you can't evacuate someone by snowmobile should be need arise. Unless you were planning to leave a snowmobile there so they could self-evacuate, which I can see the park having a problem with.

Alan
 
Hey Alan,

Happy to shed some light on that. The purpose of going in via snowmobile is to haul in supplies. This is the reason all this started. In our discussions with Ontario Parks, the Director for the northwest region also mentioned that having a trail that's broken via snowmobile (5 portages and 1 lake crossing in all), would also be of value to our guests should the need arise to evacuate them. Flying in winter is much different than summer so it's good to have a backup plan. When Ontario Parks weighs policy, they always value proposals on 4 criteria....one of these criteria is the safety to the general public. The director noted that having this trail in place would aid in the safety of our guests. His words, not mine. His name is Greg Wilson if anyone wanted to contact him.

Regarding the trails existing, sure of course they are there. In saying that, without trail being broken ahead of time, current snowpacks in the region would make for hard and time consuming travel the first time out. If these aren't broken or kept open, it would be difficult to use them in an emergency.

Harlan
 
It appears that Harlan has developed a successful business model and maybe the "lean" years have moved over to other peers (the other camp operators). Has Harlan's success had an impact on other's success? If so I would be willing to bet this lends to his status of "not popular within the community". I agree with Iskweo that the law applies to everyone but it appears it is being selectively violated by park management. If the law is written that gives Harlan, or Viking, or any other property owner motorized access then when "park management" ignores said law and attempts to restrict lawful motorized traffic it is clearly time to replace the park management. Why on earth would anyone want to load a plane in the winter and fly supplies into a remote area, when the law clearly gives them permission to do so on a snow machine? Why take the chance? Why spend the money? If it was me it would 100% be about the money.....my money....not someone else's money.

Bottom line is people do not want motors running in the wilderness.....and probably a few people have an axe to grind with Harlan. I think I will book a trip with him this summer. I will let you know how it works out.
 
The law's don't always apply equally to all, not when the lodge owner has bottomless pockets. Aiken's Lake Wilderness Lodge in Manitoba may be an example. It was in existence before Atikaki was created and declared a Wilderness Park, so it was grandfathered in. The original lease is the 9 acres on the point across from where the Gammon River flows into Aiken's Lake. That is what was there when the park opened. Then, later, with the no new construction criteria in place, they put up a new building, a corporate outpost on the South shore not on originally leased land. A couple years ago they put up another new outpost on the SW corner of the lake on again, not previously leased land. So, they have new construction in a Wilderness Park on land they did not have leased when the park was created. The Lodge is American owned, is a 5 star resort, employs primarily Canadian college students some of whom are french speaking, which I'm sure enhances the experience for the guests. Aiken's Lake Lodge does not advertise much in Canada as they are quite expensive to attend, mind you the fishing is awesome. Aiken's lake is accessible by canoe as we did a few years ago. The blight of bleach bottles on all the shoals cuts down on the wilderness feel, but that is only one lake in the park that we have been to with that issue, most just pass through on the way to the Bloodvein.

Money talks.

The threat is, if more people with bottomless pockets buy up the other grandfathered properties, do they then also get to build at will if they start throwing the money around?

If another outfitter in WCPP has access by sled in the Winter, then Harlan should be allowed as well, as a precedent has been set previously. I would like to know if the LUP you have Harlan allows further construction on your leased property and if you have plans to thus expand the operation within the Wilderness Park that you make your living from?
 
Karin, all LUP's are defined in size before they are approved. And so there is transparency here, i did not simply purchase an outpost as was stated earlier. The process is a lot more difficult than that. I had to provide a complete business plan to the Provincial Government on what i wanted to do. It was then screened locally and Provincially and had to meet several criteria. One of the more important ones is whether my proposal for the outpost is in line with park objectives. It was and we were granted approval to construct our first cabin. In doing so, we offered up a more more "green" option than was currently at the location before. We could have just had a regular cabin with noisy generator powering everything, but instead put forth a measured effort to provide a more green option. At a cost of an extra $17,000 we installed an incredible solar system so that our guests, and anyone paddling through the lake would not have to listen to a generator, thus reducing sensory disturbance and enhancing the WCPP. It also meant no fossil fuels being burned. So for anyone that thinks we are the enemy, we are not. In fact, we go the extra mile in effort and cost to ensure that everything we do is in the best interest of everyone involved.

Now, back to the LUP.....This past summer we were given written authorization for a second structure to be constructed at out LUP site. And so that's what we are looking to do.....everything is approved at the Park level and above board. Our LUP site is only a few acres in size. It will never get any larger so we cannot expand past our "plot".....and that's perfectly acceptable to us as we have no plans to do so.

This is about what's right and what's wrong....and about a bureaucracy that believes it's above the law. It isn't.

Harlan
 
This is interesting. A quick search of a Parks map indicates 15 " Tourism Facilities" within a park that was created as a wilderness park in 1983.


I noted in an article in the Dryden paper from 2013 that all recreational LUP's within the park are being phased out as the owners die or relinquish them. It would appear that commercial operations are not subject to that

http://thedrydenobserver.ca/2013/11...gal-land-use-permit-in-woodland-caribou-park/


Regardless of all that, Harlans last post indicates that he has permission to expand in a wilderness park. This is pretty much what everyone is not ok with. There is no such thing as a green building no matter how you spin it. And this is the sort of BS that has the locals fed up. WCPP is not and was never intended to be a business opportunity. Our parks are not for sale.

Stop calling the same people who approved your LUP rogue employees who operate in bad faith, because they said no to your access request.
 
Perhaps Schwartz can give some detail on his "green" practices. We all like the idea of a smaller footprint.

Solar power is not unique nor rare in camps so you can dismiss that idea
 
ISKWEO, okay this is where i am going to suggest that if you are going to make statements like that, that you take the time to educate yourself on what Ontario Parks is all about, what their directives are and what my rights are. I will make it easy and provide you with the tools to do this. Please note, it's some heavy reading but i'll give you some shortcuts along the way.

First, i have spent 6 years as the most active advocate for WCPP. In doing so, I myself have become educated on what is and what is not allowed. I do not speak out of turn, rather i investigate facts, and then respond accordingly. If you believe that locals are so fed up with "me" or "this", please state your sources and specific examples. Failure to do so just stirs the pot even more and i'm sure that's not what anyone wants.

Second, if you think Ontario Parks and WCPP was never intended to be a business opportunity, you are sadly mistaken. Please have a look at this document. It provides everything you will ever want to know about WCPP, how it operates, it's guidelines and what policies it's' bound by.

http://files.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/parks-and-protected-areas/mnr_bpp0407.pdf

There are 4 principles that guide WCPP, tourism and recreation and tourism is one of them. You can read more about that in the document. I've provided some specific quotes as well....

11.13 - Tourism and Recreation - "Two of the four objectives set out in Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy are: to recognize the land use needs of the tourism industry; and, to enhance angling, hunting and other Crown land recreation opportunities. Further, the land use strategy recognizes the signature site as having extremely significant tourism and recreation potential that merits increased planning, management and promotion. "

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________-


5.0 - Woodland Caribou Provincial Park Management Plan (page 5 of the plan)
"The four objectives of the Ontario Provincial Parks system are: protection, heritage appreciation, recreation and tourism. As a wilderness class park, Woodland Caribou Provincial Park will contribute to these through the following park objectives:
- Protect the wilderness values for which the park was created
- Support or enhance ecological health
- Protect and support a healthy population of forest-
dwelling woodland caribou
- Protect provincially significant natural features I Protect cultural heritage features
- Provide a range of backcountry tourism and
recreation opportunities where it is consistent with wilderness values and resource capacities
- Support existing facility-based tourism where it is compatible with protection objectives. "









This is just the beginning. Further reading will provide everyone with a clear understanding that tourism, is indeed a large part of what Ontario Parks is all about. I sit as a director for Sunset Country tourism. We represent hundreds of lodges and fishing camps across Northwestern Ontario. Hundreds of Thousands of Provincial dollars are spent annually to market to North America and Europe to showcase what we have and bring people over. Do you think that money is spent because there is not an agenda to generate business and $$$?

Lastly, some people in that office have acted in a "rogue" manner with proven, consistent bias and operating in bad faith. It's not hearsay, rather it's a fact. It's been proven, steps have needed to be taken against it. All of this is on file with the District office in Thunder Bay so please, unless you are privy to the same information as all those involved in this situation, do not state that I am in the wrong. I am not. Voicing an opinion is obviously healthy, and encouraged, but I speak from fact.

I hope some take the time to read this document.
 
Perhaps Schwartz can give some detail on his "green" practices. We all like the idea of a smaller footprint.

Solar power is not unique nor rare in camps so you can dismiss that idea


Seems very biased to dismiss Solar Energy as a "Green" practice. That require a substantial investment to install. Why are you so eager to dismiss it?
 
I'm not dismissing it at all but the claim of being greener than other operators is what I'm interested in.

I think solar is actually cheaper than generators when you consider the cost of flying in fuel and the substantial outlay for the generator, fuel tank and flights to get those in. None of those are going on a beaver.

I am genuinely interested in what practices are being employed that make Schwartz greener than other operators.
 
To date, we've outfitted over 3,000 paddlers on successful trips that have had an amazing experience.

Harlan

Sounds like a great accomplishment ! Great to have you on the site to provide your insight to this thread. Hope you will share some stories and pictures from some of your clients! Cheers and good luck!
 
I'm not dismissing it at all but the claim of being greener than other operators is what I'm interested in.

I think solar is actually cheaper than generators when you consider the cost of flying in fuel and the substantial outlay for the generator, fuel tank and flights to get those in. None of those are going on a beaver.

I am genuinely interested in what practices are being employed that make Schwartz greener than other operators.



Re-read my post. I am not saying i'm greener than other operators, i'm saying that when my proposal was first approved for the construction of the original cabin 2 years ago, i had to provide a business case that my new construction would be greener than the previous one.....this is in line with the "wilderness continuum" which is an important role in the Management Plan (read the document i provided the link to". If you think that swapping out a generator for solar power is not "going greener", there's an entire solar industry that could tell you otherwise. If you think $17,000 investment to setup the solar is cheaper, you're also mistaken. It would have been a lot cheaper to just setup with a generator....we chose to operate differently.

We also voluntarily did not ask for the boat cache on Big shell lake which was attached to the original LUP.....thus removing a boat and motor from another lake.....this allows for a more pleasurable experience for every park user. We could have charged extra for having such a service but chose to opt for a more "green" approach and remove this from the LUP....

Those are just 2 significant steps forward from the previous LUP holders of the site that provided for a better overall experience in the park. We didn't have to do this, we chose to do this.

Why do you discount our solar investment? I wonder, if it was your money you were putting up if you would consider it going greener or significant?
 
Thanks Harlan for explaining your side of this situation. In keeping with my desire to keep this a friendly site, I feel this thread has run its course. I'm going to invoke "ROMPR" (robin's one more post rule)
If you have something to add that we need to hear about this you get one chance, Harlan can answer all questions directed to him.
Thank You
 
Robin, thank you for your note and the opportunity to respond to this thread. i truly hope everyone takes the time to read through the document i've posted. It gives a much clearer picture of what the park is all about. In the end, this is about land rights and fairness and holding the government accountable (and I'm sure everyone of us would like more of that!).

It's unfortunate that my first posting on this site were a result of having to respond in this thread but I felt it was neccessary. The title of the thread (WCPP THREATENED), was inflammatory and not representative of the truth of the matter. In my opinion, it was done intentionally to "sensationalize" the matter and result in knee jerk reactions.....which it sure did. To all those that posed questions on this topic (both here and in email), i have responded with hard facts. Most of you have accepted these, some of you have not and continue to look for ways to discredit me....and that's ok. I'm proud of the work we do, the trips we've run and the service we've provided. Over the 6 years we've been in operation, WCPP has had more outfitting services available through us than it ever has before. We've opened up new routes, spent a ton of money on trail clearing projects, worked hand in hand with First Nations communities within the park on projects, created new tourism opportunities and run garbage cleaning trips to keep the park clean. We've marketed the park more aggressively and in more places than has ever been done since the park was born. I stand by our position on this, I stand for my rights.

so you got rid of a boat cache.

Robin and everyone else...... It truly is sad that there are people out there that just can't stand someone standing up for something or see someone getting ahead.. Red, you asked a specific question, received an answer and you act as if it means nothing. You have worked hard on this thread to distort the truth, accuse me of bending the rules (which i have not, read the park management plan), discounted my "green" improvements and called into question "solar" not going green and now think that removing a motorized boat from another lake, not too mention the eyesore it would pose on the shore, is not significant. Well Rob, I think that everyone reading this thread can see through to the truth and exactly what you are trying to do. You have contradicted yourself twice already y in this thread and deleted one of your other posts. You just can't admit that you're wrong. 7 years and counting of you consistently coming at me and it has really done nothing for you. It's time to stop Rob. Judging from the overwhelming PM's I've received on this site over the last 2 days, your animosity is clearly seen by all.

Thank you all for the time you took to respond in this thread.

Harlan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top