I understand the basic…

I understand the basic premise of the changes in terms of protecting certain areas of the natural environment etc. and seemingly to appease the owners of shoreline properties in their quest for peace and quiet.

I do however have an issue with the 300M rule. In short it's unbelievably restrictive. I do a fair bit of cruising on Lake Ontario and beyond on a 40 foot sailboat.

The new proposed definition would call my boat a liveaboard. I think this is also a problem as the tone and gist of the proposal is really about restricting houseboats and their activities. With this definition you have painted with a very broad brush that covers just about anything that floats and can have a person staying overnight onboard.

Much of my cruising is in the Thousand Islands on the Eastern end of Lake Ontario. Many of the islands are designated National Parklands. However they also include many cottages, docks, boathouses etc.

The new 300M rule, "adding a new condition to prohibit camping on water within 300 meters of a developed shoreline, including any waterfront structure, dock, boathouse, erosion control structure, altered shoreline, boat launch and/or fill." would in effect eliminate almost all the Thousand Islands National park water as legal mooring grounds, including all of the permanent moorings operated by the National Parks. It would similarly eliminate 60% of Toronto harbor by way of example. In Southern Ontario one would be hard pressed to find any shoreline that does not have "any waterfront structure".

Furthermore, 300M offshore for overnight anchoring more often than not can become a navigational hazard. If you anchor, you should be trying to get out of main channels and such but this would drive anchoring out away from the shore (The intended effect) but make navigation, at night in particular, more hazardous.

In short, the 300M is a hugely restrictive over reach and interferes with general liberty that should be and has traditionally been enjoyed on the water.

This is taking a fairly small localized problem and attacking it with a very blunt broad reaching instrument which is very unfair to the vast majority of the public who uses anchorages in a responsible, environmentally friendly manner.

The time limit alone should be sufficient to achieve the intended effects to stop what might be characterized as buoyant squatting.

Dare I say, if you move forward with the proposed changes as written, good luck enforcing it on thousands of boaters across the province.