Comments

View the comments this notice received through the registry. You can either download them all or search and sort below.

Some comments will not be posted online. Learn more about the comment status and our comment and privacy policies.

Download comments

Search comments

Comment ID

82707

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Concerns: impacts to waterways, islands and access impacts to water quality, aquatic plants, lake beds, fish, wildlife and habitat persons occupying public lands without authorization and excluding others from using that land Read more

Comment ID

82708

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I neglected to include one additional comment on the proposed regulation. Reducing the number of permitted anchoring days in one location from 21 to 7 for a calendar year is ridiculous. Read more

Comment ID

82713

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Aside from the fact that these "floating accommodations" are hideous to look at and mar the beauty of public access to waterways, are any of these "floating accommodations" subject to accommodation or other taxes?? if not, they should be. Read more

Comment ID

82715

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
ERO 019-6590 Response: Camping on Water. Max 7 days, for everyone. Excellent 300 m from any developed shoreline/ structure, dock. Perhaps increase to 1500m. Visual distancing would be enhanced. Move minimum of 1km. Excellent Read more

Comment ID

82716

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Ontario has access to 20% of the world's entire supply of fresh water, while having one of the relatively lowest population densities on the planet, as a region (ref: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-by-density). Read more

Comment ID

82718

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
While I agree with most of what is proposed. The requirement for boats to not anchor within 300m of private property to be extremely harsh given that there are already less and less protected harbors to anchor overnight due to growth in cottage development. Read more

Comment ID

82719

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
First of all, some of the reasons for this change have no studies or proof that any of the so called accommodations on water are affecting the environment. I believe some of this is motivated by landowners who have property on the water and don't like boats in front of their cottages or home's. Read more

Comment ID

82720

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
First of all, some of the reasons for this change have no studies or proof that any of the so called floating accommodations are affecting the environment. I believe some of this is motivated by landowners who have property on the water and don't like boats in front of their cottages or home's. Read more

Comment ID

82721

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
This is an egregious overstep. 300m away from any structure will wipe out DOZENS of anchorages causing crowding in the others. That crowding cause significant safety hazards as well as cause more noise and pollution due to overcrowding. Please rethink this 300m restriction.

Comment ID

82723

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
How do you justify any of this as a taxation and regulatory body? These structures have fixed units which are affixed into the lake and river beds to keep them sturdy. They must have the sufficient systems on board that any normal water going livable vessel must have. Read more

Comment ID

82724

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I am completely against having these floating accommodations on our lakes and rivers. There are many concerns including the degradation of water quality, wildlife, privacy, safety and aesthetics in this precious environment. Read more

Comment ID

82725

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Do the cottages on land need to be 300 feet apart? What if a cottage is across the bay and the bay is narrow, so one of the cottages would have to move? This is a silly idea, and is only being pushed by the elites. Luxury tax, and now this, LOL.

Comment ID

82729

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I do not agree with this amendment. I live full time in Muskoka since 2008 and I draw water from the lake for my cottage. Floating residences will lead immediately to waste and refuse tossed directly into our water supply. Noise and privacy issues will overwhelm our police departments. Read more