Mnr restricted roads

[1234567 4]

Does anyone have any idea where I can find some info on lakes in the Thunder Bay Area that are "not accessible with a motorized vechile"  mnr restricted? 

Thanks in advance 

[speckmaster 114]

Not sure where you can find info, but I think it's any lake that has a fly in outpost camp 

[Broncos 2]

Crime Stoppers map have the roads marked that are restricted you can take that road number and then go to M<NR on James and hopefully get a live person to tell you if it is still a restricted access road

[fishman1 164]

Please be aware these roads are only restricted to motorized access.

i have boats in fly in lakes in graham , park my vehicle at the MNR signs and ride a bycycles.

nothing they can do.

[mad scientist 140]

20 hours ago, fishman1 said:

Please be aware these roads are only restricted to motorized access.

 

 

Depends on the wording of the sign.  I'm aware of some roads in the Wawa area that are posted "no use of this road to access Lake X for purposes of fishing or hunting"...or words to that effect.  Point being they don't specify motorized vehicles...

[fishman1 164]

12 hours ago, mad scientist said:

 

Depends on the wording of the sign.  I'm aware of some roads in the Wawa area that are posted "no use of this road to access Lake X for purposes of fishing or hunting"...or words to that effect.  Point being they don't specify motorized vehicles...

I gues they have changed the wording so people can't use alternate methods of transportation to access the lakes.

[mad scientist 140]

13 hours ago, fishman1 said:

I gues they have changed the wording so people can't use alternate methods of transportation to access the lakes.

It's actually based on what's in MNR's land use plans...variable all over the province based on what was negotiated with stakeholders whenever the plans were being written.  

[fishman1 164]

1 hour ago, mad scientist said:

It's actually based on what's in MNR's land use plans...variable all over the province based on what was negotiated with stakeholders whenever the plans were being written.  

I have boats in fly in lakes all over the graham area. I have ridden my bycycles past the signs on many occasions, the MNR can't do anything about it.

i have only seen signs saying no motorized access to ?.. Lake.

[mad scientist 140]

2 hours ago, fishman1 said:

 I have ridden my bycycles past the signs on many occasions, the MNR can't do anything about it.

 

 

I don't have any site-specific knowledge for individual roads or lakes.  The point that I was trying to make is that there isn't a consistent rule regarding bikes; people unfamiliar with an area should read the signs carefully before assuming that non-motorized traffic is permitted.

[fishman1 164]

1 hour ago, mad scientist said:

 

I don't have any site-specific knowledge for individual roads or lakes.  The point that I was trying to make is that there isn't a consistent rule regarding bikes; people unfamiliar with an area should read the signs carefully before assuming that non-motorized traffic is permitted.

Yes thanks for the updated info. I am sure the MNR has changed things as there is always a way of legally accessing fly in lakes.

i have spoken to outfitters at trade shows and on the lakes. The first thing they do when they see me in a boat is to investigate. They are not impressed that we are in ( their) lake fishing. And the sad thing is most of the outfitters are not Canadian owned, and they can restrict Canadian access to ( their) lakes.

but on the other hand I can see their point as their customers don't like flying into a lake and seeng other boats there.

why pay for a flyin when there is a road beyond the trees.

but these roads  were built with our tax money, and now we can't use them.

a touchy subject indeed.

[speckmaster 114]

Just because the owners of the camps have a few bucks I don't think that they should have sole rights to a lake. 

[j.klister 24]

Here's a question:  Suppose that you are a fishing lodge operator that has invested, say 250K into facilities at a remote lake (for which they have all the necessary permits and tenure agreements in place with the government).  Say they can hypothetically, rent it out in the summer for say 2500 a week.  Part of the reason for the amount that you  can charge is the remoteness of the lake, and lets say maintenance of the "remoteness" is written into the tenure agreement.  

 

Now, let's say us taxpayers pay to build roads into the area to harvest the trees, one of which comes close to the lake so us  locals can somewhat easily get their own boats in.  The lake is no longer remote, so now they can only rent the facilities for 1500 a week.  

 

Investments were made in the fishing lodge facility in the first place under the conditions that the lake would remain remote, and now, its no longer remote.  What would you want if you were that business owner?  If it was me, I would want 20K every year to compensate me  for the loss of the value of my facilities (assuming a 20 week tourism season).

 

 

 

 

[Buck 120 32]

The other piece is if you are wealthy enough to own your own float plane you can access whatever lake you want.  If a lake is restricted access it should include other float planes as well.

[Bobber Down 921]

I picture it now. Thousands of red balloons dotting the landscape of Northwestern Ontario. But OH what fun for the target shooter!

 

 

[gsambray 172]

There is a sign in an area I hunt every so often. It says this road is restricted to no motorized vehicles to access of lake x. I have been on that road hunting when stopped by a conservation officer. When I asked about the road sign he told me that I am fine as long as I don't drive to the lake and use the lake. If i am using the road to access cut overs for hunting there is nothing wrong with that. I guess it's just the wording of the sign and the opinion of the c.o. At the time of his presence.