I am a resident of Wasaga…

I am a resident of Wasaga Beach, specifically just off of Mosley. First a general comment - I am pleased to see that a new plan is being developed. It is very disheartening that the significance of the Park is less and less visible every year. This is a mixed use community - what should be a very significant provincial park in the eyes of all Ontarians and a community that has thrived because of a the significance of the provincial park. The community exists because of the identified features of the park; not the park exists because of the community.

Addressing the Sections specifically:

3.1 Purpose Statement Considerations:

I generally agree with the statement considerations. I am pleased to see a statement on the cultural history as the events between the Nancy, like the past logging, bridges, and recreational opportunities should be acknowledged.

3.2 Vision Statement Considerations:

I agree, though I do question what is meant by balance diverse interests. Is this balance diverse interests arising from the diversity of the park or diverse interests of using the park for non-park activities?

4 Permitted Uses and Activities

A decision tree has been presented. It is expected that the superintendent would use professional judgement, what is missing is a statement that says the reasoning of the judgement must also be presented. This ensures transparency.

5 Boundary Considerations

It is very disturbing to find out that a boundary review is underway. How can this be done when there is not an up-to-date management plan to inform decision-making? At the very least this tells the public that the boundary review is not consistent with this planning process and therefore not transparent to the public.

The first two questions are relevant; the third should be the people of Ontario and not economic special interests of the public.

The fourth is a curious question - when did Crown land, which includes land owned by the Crown, become a burden to the Crown and the people of Ontario?

The Park needs to accept its purpose statement and vision and start acquiring property that meets it management plan mandate. For example it is unbelievable that the dune system crossed when entering WB, Highway 92 and Sunnidale road are not protected. The same for the Nottawasaga River which cuts through this dune complex.

6.1 Overnight accommodation

Absolutely. Tie it in with water access at Jack Lake to canoe down the Nottawasaga to Schoonertown parkette and you have a real winner.

6.2 Park classification

I would like to know more than a statement that a change in classification would not affect day-to-day operations since day-to-day operations are not part of the management plan.

With that caveat, I do lean to "natural environment" but do query how historical and cultural factors are captured.

6.3 Beach access paths

A path should be a path, and not a 3m allowance. It there are erosion or other like issues access can be achieved by boardwalks.

6.4 Rename the beach areas

They are fine. What is missing is any purpose to the numbering. Oakview, as a name, has the same issue.

7 Other topics

I just came back from a National Park. Dogs are allowed, with rules attached. Surely this could be applied to WBPP.

I am looking forward to the next stage to comment on the other identified subjects.

Thanks for the good work.

D.