This is a bad idea. We …

This is a bad idea. We (still, just barely) have a law that prevents the destruction of habitat of species at risk and the removal of the beach/ shoreline of Wasaga Provincial Park would be doing exactly that. Even without the law, I'm not sure what you're proposing would ensure the protection for an endangered species, even with new rules. Keeping the lands in the park, on the other hand, does EXACTLY what the province has promised to do with respect to protection of habitat. This should happen WHETHER OR NOT IT'S CONVENIENT AND PROFITABLE for the people (local and visitors) and the municipality. (More) Jet skis and ATVs don't usually make birds (or any other nearby animals) feel very safe.. they might even fell "harassed" and just find somewhere else.. if that even exists. It might not. Tens of thousands of comments on Bill 5 (99% plus against) and you still went ahead... but this is not in scope here.

Based on what I've read, the Town is doing fine and getting lots of tourism - why do they need to enhance their tourism initiatives?

Removing the beach habitat from the park would make the adjacent habitat remaining in the park more scary and less useful for the species at risk and everything they depend on there. And it's not just about the one species, but the whole unique habitat that would get raked and destroyed to make it easier for people to trample on. And selling into private hands? This is a provincial protected area for all Ontarians! What kind of message is that? You propose to abandon the following promise:

"6 Ontario’s provincial parks and conservation reserves are dedicated to the people of Ontario and visitors for their inspiration, education, health, recreational enjoyment and other benefits with the intention that these areas shall be managed to maintain their ecological integrity and to leave them unimpaired for future generations."

I can already visit Wasaga and enjoy it and see things I want to see. What do I, as an Ontarian, get out of this? Not much. Keep up your end of the bargain here.

I suggest you give the Destination Ontario money to Ontario Parks. Let the government continue to provide the important services and protections of provincial interests that matter to so many of us, instead of handouts of land and money for profit. The town already has the visitors and prosperity it needs. What it needs to do is work together with the province, and stop complaining that things are going exactly they way they want (lots of other communities would love to be in the situation they're in!). In short, it's not right that that the municipality or private owners (fancy ones, I'm sure!) would take over most of the shoreline of the park.

I hope the province changes it's mind on this proposal and decides to do it's duty here and look out for provincial interests (hopefully long-term ones). MECP needs to get over it's inferiority complex and stop seeing itself as needing to get out of the way all the time. MECP and it's mandates are very important, they are even vital to the overall wealth, health, and safety of Ontarians and Ontario (the Ontario everyone pictures in their minds with lakes, rivers, trees and biodiversity!). The work you do to protect what's important is NOT RED TAPE. Provincial Protected areas should occur not just in out of the way places!

Taking this much land out of a provincial park is a big deal. It's being wrapped in the fancy paper of Destination Wasaga like it's not already a world-class provincial park. I mean, this comment is probably a waste of time, the press release already makes the boundary change of the park sound like a done deal.

"(4) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may not order the disposition of an area of a provincial park or conservation reserve that is 50 hectares or more or 1 per cent or more of the total area of the provincial park or conservation reserve, unless,
(a) the Minister first reports on the proposed disposition to the Assembly;
(b) the Minister tables the proposed new boundaries of the provincial park or conservation reserve with the Assembly; and
(c) the Assembly endorses the proposed new boundaries of the provincial park or conservation reserve. 2006, c. 12, s. 9 (4)."

Finally, I want to point out how this ERO posting doesn't even mention the critically endangered species at risk. Who edited THAT out? Unless you think "anticipated impacts to some regulated entities" covers off this requirement clearly?? I think MECP might get in trouble from the Auditor again... This is the environmental registry, not the "promote Ontario tourism" registry. The more I read and think about this, the more annoyed I get, so I'll just stop. Thanks for reading.

PS I have no comment about Nancy Island, that's fine, I feel like it's a token to the Friends ... You put it upfront in the posting like it's the main thing happening here, and then say "by the way we also want to.., and we ALSO want to sell off.... " I think you are expecting this to be controversial. Rightly so.. In fact, it could be your conscience giving you this feeling. I think (hope) it's telling you that it's the wrong decision to proceed with this proposal. Thanks again.