I am aware of the sensitivity of this topic as it does affect peoples recreational use of the park and others livelihoods and sometimes both . As you all are aware this is cause for endless heated debate which is not my intention for this posting , I will respect the wishes of stated ABR objectives and mission statements . For clarity purposes I am neither pro nor anti- logging but somewhere in the middle as my enjoyed use of the park is only recreational.
My concern is of the occassional postings and letters of some on the ABR executive that are sometimes inconsistent with said objectives and mission statements. Is there a process of internal review that would ensure future accountability that others are held too including FMP , PMP and the AFA.
Would ABR be open to some form of review or continue to be dangerously self governed ?

Sincerely
John A. Connelly

Wow John! Are you suggesting the ABR should hand over its autonomy to another group? The founding members opted to not pursue membership in the FOA as a means to pursue the ABR's objectives, because that would subject us to the FOA's associated relationship to the MNR. Myself, I view your suggestion of "review" as audacious and ridiculous.

If you address specific postings or comments constructively, that's one thing. But to infer that the ABR be "governed" by others, or subject to external review .. well, I definitely don't consider that acceptable and I believe I speak for the balance of the EC on this issue. And, I dare say I believe it wouldn't be acceptable to most other similar groups either.

Barry Bridgeford
Executive Committee
Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists
http://www.ABRweb.ca

Thank-you for your response I am gaining a clearer picture of this issue.

I am not suggesting to relinquish " autonomy to other groups " and agree of course that it would be an unrealistic notion , and also am not inferring that myself or any other so called "watchdog" do that.
I do feel that some form of objective reflection is always healthy for any group whatever their special interest may be.
I too have spent time in a AFA truck , not as an employee or representative of any special interst group , but years ago as a curious young teenager wanting to learn as much as I could about the wonders of the bush. I will forever be grateful for that experience as it has helped me with my understanding (not expertease)of some of the varied issues regarding Algonquin Park usage.
I applaud yours and ABR endless effort to educate the public and offer solutions to the problems of spiked trees, stripping of islands for firewood , garbage control etc., and would like to contribute with time and resources to help with such worthy causes.
If however my presence would not be welcome I understand , maybe there is room or need for another group in search of middle ground , after all is that not what we are all striving for ?

Sincerely;
John A.Connelly

You do understand that the main purpose of FOA is to reproduce and publish park literature, and was created so that the money from such sales could be directed back to the park, as opposed to disappearing back into government general funds, which is what happened before. As such, they have thus far ignored my request to be told how their board of directors is appointed. They do not hold a general meetings, and many of their pamphlets etc. as distributed to the public contain heavy doses of forestry related propaganda that actually recommend cutting in the park as a way of replacing forest fires etc. in a round about and very underhanded way. Their literature is not open to public review, their membership is the rough equivalent of a Costco membership. It gets you a discount on park literature. Nothing else. It performs no pro-active lobbying for the park, and is completely locked in to the Park Administration in terms of activities and focus. If you want to start a campaign looking for accountability, you might want to look at FOA. As far as I can tell, they are accountable to no one. There are no elected directors. There are no policy meetings. You might be barking up the wrong tree. Better to ask why FOA doesn't join ABR, at least Barry answers my letters.

John, Barry et al,

I will take the plunge and offer my opinion. I note that this is an open forum. It is a place of discussion; it is a place of opinions, and it seems to be all by people who care deeply about their Algonquin Park experience. This is actually a pretty unique "place".

In my reading and writing about Algonquin Park and its history, there never has been agreement by all on how it is to operate or what is the best direction to go. That is one reason why it is a multiple use park with zones. The Park managers have the difficult task of trying to please everyone. People often disagree with them, and with the politicians that choose directions to go, and people who use the Park often disagree with each other. There are people who agree with logging, there are people who disagree with logging, there are people who can accept some logging. The same can be said for every other issue in the Park. It is an Algonquin Park tradition.

The comments on the Friends of Algonquin Park are interesting to me because I have wondered about their lack of need for public meetings. (At least twice I have noted in these discussions a sense of antagonism with that group - perhaps someone can explain why.) I know the organization was set up quite legally to operate as it does, and they do good work in promoting the Park. Yes, it is sometimes frustrating that I can't tell them how to operate my way, yes, there is government involvement, and yes, in some publications produced by them they follow "the government line" and may differ from some people's personal opinion. However, you can also go to their bookstore and purchase many books that do not follow that government perspective. A prime example is the book "Algonquin Park:The Human Impact". The mandate of the Friends is to support the Interpretive or NHE program and they do just that. They don't take sides on issues.

I am not clear as to where the frustration lies with The Friends of Algonquin Park, or why there is concern about their way of doing things. They are a group of volunteer Directors and members and employees who are trying to do good things for Algonquin Park. The Algonquin Forestry Authority is a group of Directors and employees who are trying to do good things for Algonquin Park. Algonquin Eco watch is a group with Executive or Directors, and maybe employees, and certainly volunteers who are trying to do good things for Algonquin Park. The Federation of Ontario Naturalists (or whatever they are now called) is the same, as is the Wildlands League, and the peaceful Parks Coalition. The Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists is also a group of Executive and members who are trying to do good things for Algonquin Park.

This open forum is one of the few places where there can be any discussion about Algonquin Park in any fashion; discussion by people passionate about a park. You have to admit that John has raised some interesting and thought provoking points (and maybe some hackles), not all related to the backcountry, but certainly to Algonquin Park. I may personally disagree with some of the opinions expressed here, and I may agree, but what I celebrate is that there is discussion. If we remember that we are all entitled to opinions, and that they may differ, perhaps we can all get along and think about what can be best for Algonquin Park. I know I have thought a lot about some of the topics raised here, and have even formed some new opinions.

When I write in to the ABR Open Forum I do expect that there may be some "corporate" feedback, sometimes from Barry, sometimes from others of the executive, and sometimes from members. Nowhere is it suggested that that the interests of the group are anything but based on a desire to preserve the Algonquin Park backcountry. The ABR needs only to be accountable to its members (and I believe there is no cost to join). If that means someone from the executive states an "official" opinion, that is to be expected; if the opinions stated by executive individuals are stated as members they have that right. If there is inconsistency it doesn't mean they aren't accountable, it shows they are human. One thing I will bet, is that because of this forum the ABR executive have a better idea of what people may be thinking than any of the other groups I have mentioned, because they do not have such a forum. When the AFA or Eco Watch or Friends of Algonquin Park have an open forum I will lurk there as well.

All that having been said, while the ABR is perfectly entitled to restrict the topics of discussion to Algonquin Backcountry topics, with a perspective with which which the membership agree in whole, I hope they will not. If that is their will, then it has to be respected. It is their forum.

John obviously cares deeply about Algonquin Park or he wouldn't participate and pose questions or offer opinions. The others who write in obviously care about Algonquin Park. I care about Algonquin Park. Let's celebrate that someone cares, 'cause I bet there are many more in this Province who don't. I hope we can all keep the discussion civil, and not look for "sides". By all means let's keep discussing.



Rory MacKay
(always too lengthy)

"The ABR does not take a position on logging in general, given our mission statement and goals. Our support for the "Lightening The Ecological Footprint of Logging in Algonquin Provincial Park" report is based on its recommendations to increase wilderness-like recreational areas around the park's waterways and trails. We have no intention to take on an environmental-activist role."

I found this elsewhere on the ABR website. Strikes me they are taking the same middle ground as the Friends of Algonquin Park. The ABR supports their mandate to preserve Algonquin Park's wilderness qualities and the Friends of Algonquin Park support the NHE program, which in turn supports the government idea that there can be sustainable logging in a park environment. I know not all agree, but when compared with the forests of 1893 or Tom Thomson's time, the forests of Algonquin Park are much better off today than then. The ABR, FOAP and AFA all have their respective roles in the Park.

Here is what is said on the FOAP web page. Sounds similar to ABR (volunteer board/executive, supports Park, does good things), except ABR is not a registered charity:

"The Friends of Algonquin Park is a non-profit, registered charity, dedicated to furthering the educational and interpretive programs in Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario's oldest and most famous provincial park.

Founded in 1983, with a volunteer Board of Directors, The Friends of Algonquin Park, Ontario's first cooperating association, has:

* Generated millions of dollars in gifts for Algonquin Park since its inception;
* Expanded and republished the Park's official publications which educate about Algonquin's amazing natural and cultural heritage;
* Funded educational programs for all age groups throughout the year;
* Raised over a million dollars for the construction and maintenance of interpretive exhibits in the Park's two museums Algonquin Visitor Centre and Algonquin Logging Museum;
* Supported research about Park wildlife and cultural history;
* Accomplished even more...

To achieve its special goal, The Friends raises money through generous donations from individuals and corporations, membership fees, publication sales and net proceeds from its bookstores at the Algonquin Visitor Centre, Logging Museum and online.

The Friends operates as a cooperating association under an agreement with Ontario Parks, but is an independent charity that does not lobby for or against issues concerning Algonquin Park's management."

All you need to know is FOA is not in the business of acting pro-actively in the interest of back-country users. That being said, I buy a lot of their publications etc. But compared to ABR they are not in a position to affect policy changes. This time around with the Forestry Plan my main concern ended up being the 43 different places portages are crossed by logging roads. Where do I go with such concerns? Definitiely not FOA. There is no organization apart from ABR that I've found that comes anywhere close to taking up those causes. Just as a review, a friend of mine came very close to being clipped by a logging truck a few years ago. The response of the Park Super seems to be they can sue if they get hit. I have to say, Barry is the only guy who seems to be taking on these kinds of issues. ALgonquin ECO watch will not even accept volunteers unless it's college or university students with specific skills. Teresa tried to volunteer for them, they said "Join FOA." Personally, this ABR is a lot less than it could be, but as I found out with my Wiki site, canoeists are complacent. ABR is a speck of dust in a vacuum tube. ATVers, SKIDOOers etc. are way out in front of canoeists in terms of organizations that promote their interests. That's just the way it is.

FOA and Eco Watch are closed organizations with specific focus. They do good stuff, but what they don't do is as important as what they do. FOA is great at channeling funds donated by various folks to the park, it's a great thing to do. But really, how does the Visitor Center and similar projects affect back country canoeing? The interests of the million visitors a year, most of whom stay in the corridor campgrounds is always going to be the first concern of most groups. As far as I can tell most canoeists are content to accept what the Park Administration hands out. ANd really, the park administration isn't so bad. It's just they consider everyone. I still think canoeists should have an organization of their own. And ABR comes closest to that at the moment.

Something that's been left out of this thread is the work that conservation groups, naturalists and scientists have done in protecting large areas of AP from logging. After the 1974 Master Plan, the amount of park area zoned for protection was only several percent (maybe 7%).

Today that number is up to about 43%, and largely due to the efforts of organizations like the Wildlands League and CPAWS (Algonquin Wildlands League back in the 70s), and more recently Ontario Nature, Earthroots, Ecojustice and others.

Many of the nature reserves protect significant and representative natural areas, with the ground work being done by scientists and naturalists.

During the nineties, CPAWS worked towards zoning the central Lavieille/Dickson wilderness area towards protection, and I believe Kevin Callan was also involved.

The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario originally initiated work carried out by the Ontario Parks Board resulting in the most recent "Lightening The Footprint... etc" protection measures.

One of the problems that continues to persist is that old growth forests continue to be cut in the recreation/utilization zone, although some allowance for old growth has been made by AFA.

A little rushed during yesterday's post... the actual percentage of park area currently protected is 49%. The 43% I wrote above is land area only. The press releases that the MNR minister made earlier stating that 49% of the park area will be protected included open water because the parks board felt that lakes and rivers needed to be removed from their previous zoning in the recreation/utilization zone and added to the increased zoning planned for protection.

Canoeing through a park described as natural environment, you probably want less logging rather than more of it. The large core wilderness zones and the numerous nature reserves can provide higher-quality areas to spend time in, if seeing natural areas are part of the experience being sought. It's probably self-evident that this is what most interior travelers want.

There's also the knowledge in the mind if the interior traveler, that the protected area visited isn't being exploited for commercial reasons. A protected park area is there primarily for it's natural qualities, and this may add some value to the larger landscape, and to the interior experience.