attitudes toward the use and subsequent management philosophy to- ... It is this management philosophy that appears to have historically ..... Valletta, Malta.
Annals o~Tourism Research, Vol. 19, pp. 467-481, Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.
TOURISM
199’2 Copyright
0160-7383/92 $5.00 + .oo 0 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd.
AS A CONFLICTING LAND USE Charles
Bob McKercher Sturt University-Murray, Australia
Abstract: The Northern Ontario tourist outfitting industry in Canada is facing an uncertain future. Its resource base is shrinking as commercial forestry activities expand into remote areas traditionally used by tourism. The creation of a network of forest access roads has exposed a large number of backcountry lakes to mass recreational use. Conflicts have arisen over tourism’s needs and demands made by non-tourism-oriented recreational anglers for access to any fishing opportunity. Until recently, government agencies have not fully recognized the complexity of the problem, and, hence, attempts to resolve the conflict have met with limited success. This article examines the threats posed by logging activities on commercial outfitting in Northern Ontario. Keywords: Ontario, environmental tourism, resource conflict, policy. RCsumC: Le tourisme et les disputes de l’utilisation de la terre. L’industrie de l’equipement de sport de l’ontario du Nord se trouve devant un avenir incertain. Sa base de ressources est en train de se resserrer au fur et a mesure que les activites de la sylviculture commerciale s’etendent dans les regions &artCes qui ont Ctt utilisees traditionnellement par le tourisme. La creation d’un reseau de chemins d’accts aux for&ts a expose un grand nombre de lacs isoles a l’utilisation de masse. Des conflicts ont surgi entre les besoins du tourisme et les exigences des p&cheurs de recreation non-touristique pour l’acces a n’importe quel lieu de p&he. Jusqu’a ces derniers temps, les organismes du gouvernement n’ont pas trts bien compris la complexite du probleme, et les efforts pour rtsoudre le conflit ont done eu un succes limitt. Le present article examine les menaces profertes par l’abattage des arbres 5. l’egard des maisons de sports en Ontario du Nord. Mots-cl&: Ontario, tourisme environnemental, conflit de ressources, politique.
INTRODUCTION The wilderness tourist outfitting industry in Northern Ontario (Canada) is facing a crisis. Prime wilderness tourism habitat has been destroyed, resulting in the closure of many tourist operations. The expansion of commercial logging activities into remote areas traditionally
Bob McKercher is a Senior Lecturer and coordinator of the Tourism Strand in the School of Business at Charles Sturt University (Albury NSW, 2640 Australia). Earlier he was employed as the executive director of the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association (Canada) which represents the interests of the outfitters. His duties included research, policy development and implementation, and government relations. 467
468
TOURISM
AS A CONFLICTING
LAND USE
used bv outfitters has been identified bv the outfitting industrv as the proximate cause of this crisis (NOT0 1987d). Commercial forestry operations create a variety of impacts on tourism. The loss of scenic vistas, destruction of important fish and wildlife habitats, disruption of guests’ vacations caused by active logging operations, and conflicts between forestry workers and tourists are just some of the consequences that may occur as a result of logging activities in the vicinity of a tourist lodge. More important, however, the construction of logging roads has enabled large numbers of motorized recreationists to gain access to once remote regions. Mass recreational use of back country areas and heavy angling pressure on once remote lakes inflict a variety of negative impacts on the tourism industry. An overstressed fishery, yielding reduced catches, will lower angler satisfaction levels. Garbage, vandalism, noise, overcrowding, excessive contact between tourists and other anglers, and the loss of the wilderness character of a resort are some impacts reported by outfitters to the author. As a result, a major conflict over the use of and access to the province’s remote tourism lakes has developed between tourism operators and resident anglers. The destination resorts of Northern Ontario depend on Ontario’s Crown land and water resources for their livelihood. Traditionally, however, tourism has been excluded from the Crown land management decision-making process (Mogford 1987). A management philosophy appears to have evolved that favored the forest products industry and other Crown land recreational user groups (in particular, resident recreational anglers) over tourism interests, much to the detriment of tourist outfitters (Wisneski 1986). As a consequence, the outfitting industry has been forced to adopt a reactive position to fight for its survival. This stance has not succeeded. It is estimated that the base lodge plant has declined by up to 20% since the late 1970s (personal communication with Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Recreation). Until recently, provincial government agencies, such as the Ministry of Natural Resources, have been reluctant to implement proactive management strategies that could resolve tourism’s concerns. In their place, a number of actions and policies designed to address the resultant impacts of forestry activities and increased access have been applied, with limited success. This article examines the issue of conflicting land use involving tourism, forestry, and recreational angler groups from a tourism perspective. It explores the impacts of a declining wilderness tourism habitat on the industry and investigates the roles played by both forestry and recreational users in this decline. The article further evaluates reasons why government agencies have been slow to react to the issue. It concludes by discussing the challenge faced by Crown land managers in implementing an acceptable solution. Constraints and Definitions The conflict has attracted little attention outside of the Ontario angling community; thus, little independently produced information exists. Much of the information cited in this article derives from studies
BOB MCKERCHER
469
conducted by the author when he was employed as the executive director of the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association (NOTO), the industry trade association representing the interests of Northern Ontario’s destination resorts. The issue is further complicated by the imprecise definition of a tourist outfitter. It is generally accepted by the industry that to qualify as an outfitter, a tourist operation must be located in a rural or isolated area and generate a significant proportion of its annual revenues from fishing, hunting, or backcountry recreation. Outfitters, however, offer a variety of tourist services (including motel style accommodation, self-catered cottages, main base facilities, remote cabins or outpost camps on isolated lakes, tent and trailer parks, wilderness canoeing facilities, and, in many cases, air services to backcountry areas) that may result in the categorization of the business into other accommodation classes. In addition, the inherent seasonality of the business means that some operators offer traditional outfitting services for only part of their operating season. For the purpose of this article, a tourist outfitter is defined according to the constitution of the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association as “any business . . . that rents permanent or itinerant accommodations and boats and/or motors for recreational purposes” (NOT0 1985a:4). A resident angler is any Ontario resident who fishes anywhere within the province. All residents are afforded the same privilege of access and use, regardless of where they live. The greater frequency of contact and, therefore, potential conflict, tends to occur with resident anglers who live in the local vicinity of affected tourist operations. For the purpose of this article, Northern Ontario is defined as that part of the province that extends north of the French and Mattawa Rivers, as well as all of Parry Sound and Nipissing District. This area encompasses the six northern Ontario Travel Association Regions and coincides roughly with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resource’s (MNR) four northern regional offices (Figure 1). Contextual Framework
The origin of the conflict between the forestry industry, resident anglers, and tourist operators relates to differences in their observed attitudes toward the use and subsequent management philosophy towards wilderness. The logging industry has a clear economic objective in exploiting the province’s timber supplies. It is in their best interests to maximize their vehicular access opportunities to the province’s timber supplies. As such, they support a policy of developing an extended network of resource roads for their use. Easy access and the opportunity to clear-cut large tracts of land introduce economies of scale that permit profitable logging operations. The difference in attitude between resident anglers and tourism operators is, however, less clearly defined. In comparison to operators, resident anglers would appear to have a more anthropocentric approach to wilderness recreation. Backcountry areas are regarded as prime recreational areas; as such, residents support actions that increase access, reduce difficulty and danger, and facilitate recreational
470
TOURISM
AS A CONFLICTING
LAND USE
Approximate Northern Limit af Outfitter Development
COUNTRY
‘::j::::: . ‘.“’ .. .
Areas of Concentrated Base Lodge Development.
Outfltter
Figure 1. Northern Ontario Travel Association Regions and Areas of Concentrated Outfitter Base Lodge Development
use (Hendee, Stankey and Lucas 1978). Indeed, many Northerners argue that, by right of residency, they “own” Ontario’s Crown lands and, therefore, enjoy unrestricted rights of access to and use of them. In accordance with the anthropocentric philosophy toward wilderness management, it has been observed that these residents tend to oppose any actions that attempt to hinder or restrict their use of Crown lands. Hendee et al. (1978: 17), summarizing Julber (1972) and Netboy (1974), comment that “management under this philosophy would be consistent with the views of some observers who argue that wilderness regulations (restricting certain uses) discriminate against many people and, in effect, close off public lands to the majority of the public.” This attitude was reflected in residents’ strong opposition to attempts by tourism operators to protect wilderness values by restricting vehicular access on certain logging roads. Many of the propositions forwarded by (NOTO) in its White Paper were branded as being undemocratic and labeled as an attempt to deny residents their fundamental rights to use Crown land. It is this management philosophy that appears to have historically driven Ontario’s Crown land management decisions. The province through its District Land Use Guidelines, has justified both the expansion of the logging road network and public use of these roads on the grounds that they provide enhanced recreational opportunities for residents. In this manner, the philosophy of multiple use has been achieved. On the other hand, the remote tourism industry tends to take a much more biocentric approach to Crown land management. This philosophy, while still providing human benefits, aims to preserve the
BOB MCKERCHER
471
recreational order through controlling the introduction of excessive recreational use (Hendee et al. 1978). The use of backcountry areas by commercial roofed accommodation tourist outfitters is strictly controlled. The number of tourists permitted is limited by the carrying capacity of the water body and controlled by the MNR through its Land Use Permit system. In this manner, the fishery resource can be managed at a sustainable level, providing a quality tourism experience for the guests. The biocentric management philosophy tends to promote recreational opportunities with a much narrower appeal than those associated with anthropocentric activities. Users tend to seek experiences that emphasize the primitive environment, challenge, and solitude: activities that contrast with more widely practiced recreational activities in nonwilderness settings (Hendee et al. 1978). Conflicts are inevitable when groups of people espousing these two views compete for the same area. The literature is replete with case studies examining such conflicts. Hendee et al. (1978) and Manning (1985) present an excellent review of the literature discussing the evolution of conflicts between groups seeking wilderness and nonwilderness experiences. They illustrate that conflicts can arise for a number of reasons, including the size, number, and frequency of groups encountered, the degree of “alikeness” or difference between the groups, visitor behaviors, and various situational variables in which the encounters occur. Moreover, Jacob and Schreyer (1980) argue that, although groups may have the same goals, conflicts may arise over each group’s means of attaining the goal. They illustrate that differences in activity style, lifestyle tolerance, mode of experience, and resource specificity can produce conflicts in the pursuit of outdoor recreational activities. In the Northern Ontario situation, both residents and tourists are ostensibly seeking the same goal: recreational fishing. But, because significant differences exist in how they choose to pursue that goal, major conflicts have arisen. Continuing conflict between these groups will often lead to the displacement of the group seeking wilderness or near wilderness experiences (Anderson and Brown 1984). Marsh (1986) describes the displacement of tourists from wilderness areas once the area has become degraded. He suggests that, as former wilderness areas become more popular and more heavily used, the wilderness appeal of the area entered into can become degraded, resulting in a changed experience. While the area may be attractive to a new clientele tolerant of degraded wilderness and larger crowds, it will no longer be sought after by the initial user group. These users may then become displaced and seek new wilderness areas that satisfy their needs. While some users groups may be able to find new areas to enjoy wilderness, wilderness tourism operations, once displaced, have few relocation opportunities available to them. The capital costs associated with abandoning one business and reestablishing it elsewhere are prohibitive. Moreover, virtually no new development opportunities exist for Ontario’s outfitters. As the Minister of Natural Resources stated in 1985, “there were always more resources and new land to open up just over the next hill . . . [but] we are running out of new hills. When
472
TOURISM
AS A CONFLICTING
LAND USE
new demands arise, there is no new resource rich land to open up . . [We must] start making sure that everyone shares in the resources that are available. And we have to do it in such a way that the activities of one user do not impinge on the others” (Kerrio 1986:6).
NORTHERN
ONTARIO
OUTFITTING
INDUSTRY
Northern Ontario is a sportsman’s paradise. The province’s 250,000 lakes teem with a variety of sportfish. Both big and small game roam over the nearly one million km2 of unoccupied Crown land. Over the past 100 years, a diverse outfitting industry has evolved to satisfy the needs of sportsmen from around the world. The product mix is varied and includes fishing, commercial hunting packages, outfitting for wilderness travel, and freshwater recreational opportunities for family vacations. It is Northern Ontario’s reputation as a freshwater fishing destination, however, that forms the backbone of the outfitting industry. Northern Ontario is the preeminent fresh water fishing vacation destination in Canada. In 1985, the province attracted 74% of all nonresident anglers fishing in Canada (DFO 1988a). Nearly 600,000 nonresident anglers spent an estimated 2.9 million person nights in commercial accommodation facilities in Ontario (DFO 1988b). Best estimates suggest that about 1,400 base lodges, resorts, housekeeping cottages, and outfitters provide a variety of fishing, fishing and hunting, hunting, or outfitting vacations in Northern Ontario (NOT0 1987d). Actually, Northern Ontario contains 50% of the total freshwater fishing lodge infrastructure in Canada (NOT0 1987c). About two-thirds of the outfitting market is from the United States, while one-third is domestic (NOT0 1985b). The proportion of the US clients increases toward the northwest of the province. In the far northwest, the client base is almost exclusively American. By contrast, because of its proximity to the large population centers of Southern Ontario, the southeastern part of the region attracts more Canadian anglers. Outfitters provide residents of Ontario with the opportunity to experience a variety of recreational angling opportunities that may not be readily available to them (such as fly-in fishing, guided packages, and a roofed accommodation angling vacation). Outfitters operate in all southern areas of Northern Ontario, with concentrations of businesses noted in the far northwest and southeast corners of the region (NOT0 1988a). A long-standing provincial policy prohibiting tourism development in the province’s far north has effectively created a northern boundary of commercial tourism development (NOT0 1986a). Because of the aforementioned problems of defining an outfitter, various attempts have been made to categorize the industry according to either facilities and amenities offered, accommodation types, or mode of access. For the purpose of this article, the industry will be classified according to accessibility. Road accessible properties have direct highway or secondary road access to the operation. Clients staying at nonroad accessible or remote tourist operations, as the name implies, cannot drive directly to the property. Access is normally gained by
BOB MCKERCHER
473
air, although a smaller number of operations are boat or rail accessible. These two types of outfitting operations have evolved separately, offering different vacation experiences to their respective clients. While each sector caters to different markets, both types of operation can be highly profitable. Generally, however, the remote sector appeals to a more up-market client, with guests prepared to pay more than US$l,OOO per week, plus travel expenses, for a fishing holiday. Over three-fourths of all base lodges are road accessible. A large number of these businesses, however, also offer a remote tourism experience. An operator may have a road accessible main base lodge and also operate remote outpost camps or cabins that are located on the shores of isolated lakes. It is estimated that 40% of the industry, or more than 550 businesses, offers remote accommodation facilities (NOT0 198513). Small family operated tourism businesses typify this industry. The average main base lodge consists of 8-12 accommodation units that generate annual gross revenues of around $200,000 (NOT0 1987a, 198813). Over 15,000 persons are employed by the 1,400 lodge operators (NOT0 1989), including more than 2,200 Native Canadians (NOT0 1988~). Large variations in revenues of tourism businesses however, are noted. While some generate large incomes, the industry appears to be dominated by many establishments generating little revenue. In a study conducted in Northwestern Ontario by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, the dominant third of operations surveyed accounted for over 70% of all tourism receipts. By contrast, the smallest third of businesses generated less than 8% of sales (MTR 1986). A survey conducted by NOT0 in 1987 revealed that fewer than 9 % of operators reported gross revenues of $500,000 or more. On the other hand, 44% of operators reported annual revenues of less than $100,000, with 25% claiming gross revenues of under $50,000 per annum (NOT0 1988d). While the individual operator’s revenues may appear small, collectively, the industry represents a significant economic activity in Northern Ontario. Aggregate gross revenues from this sector exceed $300 million annually, with an annual payroll in excess of $60 million (NOT0 1989). In terms of revenue generated, the outfitting industry is the third largest industry in Northern Ontario, behind only forestry and mining (MNR 1986). The benefits of outfitting extend beyond the economic impacts noted. Outfitters support a wide range of local, regional, and provincial businesses. The operations increase the tax base of their local area, assist in diversifying local economies, and provide employment opportunities for disadvantaged people in Northern Ontario (McKercher 1988). Outfitters rely heavily on repeat customers to sustain their businesses. Outfitters have reported to the author that repeat visitation rates in excess of 90% are not unusual, with a repeat rate of 70%80 % appearing to be the norm. The prognosis for much of the industry is poor. In absolute numbers, the outfitting industry appears to be declining. Between 1977 and 1988, the number of outfitter establishments in Ontario is estimated to have decreased by between 250 and 300 businesses. The reasons for this loss of infrastructure are, no
474
TOURISM
AS A CONFLICTING
LAND USE
doubt, varied. In the southern part of the region, acid rain is threatening the fish stocks on which the industry is reliant (Cronin 1990). Elsewhere, the economic recession of the early 198Os, coupled with Tourism Canada’s decision to shift its marketing focus away from “Moose, Mountains and Mounties” to urban-oriented tourism, lowered the profile of the industry (NOT0 1985b). The outfitters’ association (NOTO) believes, however, that the loss of the tourism resource base, or tourism habitat, is the leading reason for most of the business closures. Outfitters cite a decline in the sport fishery in Georgian Bay for a 28 % decline in tourist lodges in the West Parry Sound area between 1963 and 1983 (NOT0 198513) as evidence. They also point to the mostly anecdotal evidence of the increase in popularity of “all terrain vehicles” and snowmobiles, arguing that they contribute to a decline in the quality of the fisheries and the resultant loss of outfitting business near urban centers. The tourist product in the north is essentially inelastic and diversification options limited. As NOT0 stated in one of its policy papers, “Tourist camps are restricted by the size of plant, distances to be travelled, short summer seasons and more proximate and better competition to the south. In some cases a camp in Hearst, Red Lake, Wawa or Kenora cannot change its markets. Yet, that is what many are being forced to consider as their resource base is lost” (NOT0 1987d:17). For the foreseeable future, much of the industry will be forced to remain reliant on its traditional product mix, even though the resource base on which it depends is in decline. Tourism Habitat
Fisheries and wildlife populations have well-understood habitat requirements that must be met to ensure their species’ survival. In a similar manner, it would appear that the tourist outfitting industry also has specific environmental needs that must be preserved if the industry is to survive. Unlike wildlife populations, however, the concept of tourism habitat encompasses a wide range of both physical and psychological parameters that vary according to the type of experience sought. Moreover, they are often variable, being defined by the individual seeking the tourism experience. Studies have shown few differences in the factors that influence angling enjoyment among resident and nonresident anglers (DFO 1988a, 198813). By in ference, these studies also indicate few differences in the identified factors that affect tourism and non-tourism-oriented angling satisfaction. Because tourism has traditionally been considered an extension of the recreation paradigm (Mathieson and Wall 1983), it has been assumed that a common set of parameters could define the angling requirements of both user groups. It is evident to tourist operators, however, that their guests desire a significantly different type of angling experience than the general recreational fishing population. Distance traveled, costs incurred, and an assumption of higher quality angling opportunities raise consumer expectations. While satisfaction levels of both groups are influenced by such physical criteria as the quality of the fishery and scenic vistas
BOB MCKERCHER
475
(DFO 1988a), a range of qualitative and emotive factors plays an important role in determining the satisfaction levels of tourists. Munford (1987) identified some of these factors as seeking a sense of wilderness, an escape from urban life and a feeling of getting away from it all to a pure clean unspoiled environment. It would appear that wilderness anglers are seeking many of the same experiences that other wilderness backcountry travelers seek (Hendee et al. 1987). From a consumer’s perspective, remoteness, or lack of it, appears to exert the greatest influence on the perception of ideal tourism habitat. Remoteness infers a number of qualities, including a sense of environmental purity, isolation, difficult access, and an exclusive kind of lishing experience (MNR 1986). If the perception of remoteness is altered, the tourism habitat will be seen to have been altered. Thus, the experience sought will be diminished and may lead to the displacement of the client. In accessible areas, some disturbance is both accepted and expected. The greater the level of remoteness sought, however, the greater the demand will be for the expectation of entering a pristine environment (Jacob and Schreyer 1980; MNR 1986). In extreme situations, any contact with other users or any evidence of disturbance (such as evidence of logging activities on scenic vistas) will be considered unacceptable. The effects of changes in the tourism habitat are most noticeable on remote lakes with outpost camp developments, or lakes with fly-in base lodges where clients have specifically sought a wilderness angling experience. Remoteness also plays a strong role in maintaining the ecological integrity of the tourism habitat. Because of their relative inaccessibility, remote tourist lakes are subjected to less angling pressure and fewer other human impacts than road accessible lakes. The loss of remoteness, through the construction of access roads, exposes these lakes to greater and more intense pressure by all anglers. The increased pressure may destroy the historic equilibrium of the fishery, causing the quality of the angling opportunity to diminish (personal communication with MNR). Tourism habitat can encompass vast areas of land and water. The entire surface area of the lake or river system fished, all shoreline areas, scenic vistas visible from the water’s surface, and all navigable waterways entering into or exiting from the waterbody that are either actively or passively encountered by the guest may be considered as part of the habitat of a single operation. The partial destruction of ecosystem anywhere within this area may materially alter the quality of the tourism experience. The creation of road access points on any navigable section of the waterbody effectively exposes the entire water system to the risk of increased angling pressure from residents. The loss of scenic vistas or evidence of industrial logging activities detracts from the perception guests may have that they are entering pristine environments. The tourism habitat of destination resorts located on large waterbodies may extend over hundreds of square kilometers surrounding the facility. Wilderness canoe trippers require even larger areas. Wilson (1984) identified 2,600 km of loop and connecting canoe routes in the Temagami area that were accessible from his base operation.
476
TOURISM
AS A CONFLICTING
LAND USE
Role of the Forest Products Industry
The actions of the forest products industry produce a variety of direct and indirect impacts on tourism habitat. Noise, loss of scenic vistas, and destruction of fisheries and wildlife habitat are some of the direct impacts felt by outfitters (NOT0 1987b). The province has been successful in establishing a negotiating mechanism to minimize the direct effects of logging on tourism. In 1985-1986, a joint tourism/ logging industry committee developed a series of timber management guidelines for the protection of aesthetic tourism values (MNR 1986). These guidelines have now been entrenched in the timber planning process. There is still some debate about the effectiveness of the guidelines. Ideally, they were designed to ensure equality in the timber planning process. But application of the guidelines only comes into effect near the end of the preparation of the preliminary timber management plan, a plan that is produced by the logging company itself. To their credit, the guidelines afford tourism access to the planning process and describe a variety of logging proscriptions that may be beneficial to tourism interests. Rather than being an equal partner, however, tourism is still a peripheral player in the timber management planning process. The province has been much less successful, however, in resolving the issue of the use of logging roads to access remote fisheries by large numbers of recreational anglers. Under the guise of a multiple-use management strategy, a pattern evolved whereby recreational fishing opportunities and the expansion of the forest access road network became intrinsically linked. As Munford (1987:l) notes, “The creation of access is a long term problem. Unlike harvesting operations that may last only a short period of time, once an area has been accessed, it will be accessed forever.” The issue of permanency of access leading to ongoing, continued use of formerly remote tourism lakes by recreational anglers has fostered the conflict that exists today. Past management of Ontario’s forests at less than sustainable levels (CC0 1987) h as created the need for the constant expansion of logging activities into new areas. For the foreseeable future, the network of access roads will have to continue to expand to satisfy the industry’s demand for wood fiber. More tourism operations will continue to be placed at risk. Role of the Recreational Angler
Ontario’s fishery has traditionally been viewed as a free, common property owned by the people of Ontario (MNR 1989; Pearse 1988). In law, however, this resource is owned by the Crown, with management vested in the province. The province, in turn, grants individuals the privilege to use these resources (DFO 1987; Personal Communication with MNR Legal Services Branch). Residents, however, traditionally have held the belief that they enjoy the right, not the privilege, to fish anywhere they choose. Further, they argue that because their taxes subsidize the construction of logging access roads, they also have the right to unrestricted use of these
BOB MCKERCHER
477
roads to gain access to fishing areas. Tourist operators wishing to protect the lakes they utilize from access and uncontrolled fishing pressure are regarded as attempting to deny residents their fundamental rights (Munford 1985). For its part, the industry has stated that it does not wish to deny residents the privilege of using the province’s angling resources (NOT0 1988e). It is the traditional anthropocentric management philosophy permitting unrestricted access to all fisheries that has been challenged. The outfitting industry has advocated the implementation of a series of lake specific management plans to protect sensitive fisherit has proposed a variety of strategies to protect ies. In particular, the decreasing number of remote tourism lakes remaining in Ontario (NOT0 1986b, 1987d). The industry believes that such proactive management measures will protect tourism’s interests, without denying residents the opportunity to fish. This argument appears to have some validity. In the combined MNR Regions of Northeastern and Northern Ontario, over 15,700 lakes were accessible by road in 1987. By contrast, the tourism industry here uses only 770 lakes, of which fewer than 415 were classified as remote tourism lakes. Road access has been provided to 40% of the lakes in these regions, while remote tourism lakes constitute only 1% of the region’s total lake population (unpublished 1988 information supplied by MNR Northern and Northeastern Regional Offices). Once a lake has been accessed, the quality of the tourism experience declines. If the product becomes unmarketable, operators have limited relocation options. Few lakes with undeveloped tourism potential remain. Most suitable lakes in Northern Ontario have either been accessed or have been developed (Kerrio 1986). The industry is restricted from expanding into the undeveloped far north. Moreover, unless compensation is provided for the lost business, the cost of reestablishing a business in a new area is prohibitive. Evidence of Stress In 1986, the outfitters’ association conducted a major internal survey of its members to identify key issues and concerns (NOT0 1987b). Operators identified forestry and forestry-related concerns as being the most important of 33 stated issues. In an open-ended question, access and its consequences were clearly identified as the key concerns threatening the industry: “Past records show that major timber access roads eventually become ‘multi purpose’ recreational access points to the interior. . . . This leads to accumulating garbage, fishing and hunting over pressure and the eventual erosion of the ‘wilderness experience”’ (Wilson 1986:6). Government agencies and industry representatives are aware that severe negative impacts are being felt. However, well-documented cases verifying the impacts are rare; much of the information is anecdotal in nature. Nonetheless, over 50 threatened outfitter operations have been identified (Wisneski 1986). Impacts have forced the closure and abandonment of outpost camps with a resultant loss of both income generating potential and the initial investment in the facility
478
TOURISM
AS A CONFLICTING
LAND USE
(Best 1989). In one instance, an operator northwest of Thunder Bay lost 50% of his accommodation facilities in 15 years, directly because of expanded logging operations threatening the ongoing viability of the business (CBC 1985). The area along the Highway 11 corridor of Northeastern Ontario is under heavy active logging pressure. Its outfitting industry is showing many signs of stress. Average revenues in that zone are only three fourths of the provincial norm and operators spend proportionately more of their gross revenues on marketing their businesses in an attempt to replace lost repeat business. Moreover, this area has the highest business turnover rate in any outfitting region in Ontario (NOT0 1987a). As the issue has intensified, the trade association representing tourist outfitters has advocated increasingly strong measures to protect tourism habitat (Wisneski 1985, 1986). By 1987, it was seeking a guaranteed allocation of the fisheries resource, either through the enforced closure of roads or the leasing of lakes and rivers to tourist operators (NOT0 1987d). This request for either a de facto or an actual allocation of part of the resource to tourism met with strong public opposition. By late 1989, the industry had apparently withdrawn from this demand (NOT0 1989), ironically, at a time when the government appeared prepared to place the issue of resource allocation on its agenda. The proposed new fishery strategy for Ontario alludes to some form of allocation (MNR 1990a). In the spring of 1990, a working group commissioned by MNR had submitted a report to the province on ways of allocating aquatic resources (MNR 1990b). In addition, the province is midway through a major set of environmental hearings that will reshape timber management activities on Crown lands (CC0 1989). These hearings afford tourism the best opportunity the industry will have to protect its habitat from both direct and indirect impacts of forestry activities. Changing Government Attitudes has become In recent years, The Ministry of Natural Resources more aware of the complexity and severity of the problem. This awareness has, however, been slow to evolve. The lack of knowledge of the wilderness tourism industry was a major inhibiting factor. The ministry’s traditional role in tourism has been to manage Ontario’s provincial park system. The resolution of outfitters’ concerns requires a separate and distinct management approach from that used in parks. Attempts to implement park management strategies to resolve outfitter conflicts have, for the most part, been inappropriate (MNR 1987). The positioning of tourism within the provincial land use planning process further complicates the issue. While the MNR has plans and policies relating to forestry management, fisheries, wildlife, Crown lands and waters, and parks and recreational areas, there is no separate program that stands by itself or focuses directly on tourism (Mogford 1987). The challenge has been to find an effective method of integrating tourism with other MNR policies and programs. Past Ministry policy and planning exercises have failed to address tourism concerns
BOB MCKERCHER
479
(Blake 1986; W isneski 1986). Since 1987, however, a commitment has been made to designate an internal tourism spokesperson in each MNR district and regional office to act on behalf of the industry (Kerrio 1987). The final challenge to be overcome was the recognition of the role resident anglers played in the issue. Historically, the conflict has been regarded by both tourism and natural resource officials as a two-sided issue involving only forestry and tourism. Resident anglers and hunters were considered to be opportunists taking advantage of the road network, rather than an integral part of the problem. It was erroneously believed that, by applying timber management solutions, the problem could be resolved. It was only when the active role played by resident anglers was recognized that the complexity of the issue was finally clarified. Past attempts to restrict resident use of access roads have failed. Gates have proven to be ineffective, and bridges and culverts that have been removed have been replaced by intrepid anglers. A network of unsanctioned access points exists throughout Northern Ontario. The province has found itself in the farcical position of having to gate illegal access points in an attempt to restrict unauthorized access.
CONCLUSIONS The provincial policy of permitting unrestricted access by all user groups to the province’s northern fishery resources remains the key unresolved issue threatening the future of the tourist outfitting industry in Northern Ontario. Past attempts by government agencies to address the resultant impacts of access have not succeeded in protecting the interests of the outfitting sector. Because of the highly contentious nature of the issue, it is unlikely that the parties involved will be able to reach a resolution without active involvement by the provincial government. Much animosity is felt by residents toward tourist outfitters and their guests. Tourism is regarded as the conflicting and undesired land use even though it may have been the original resource user. Any attempts to deny or restrict resident access to Crown land and water resources are regarded as the denial of a fundamental right felt by many northerners. If a workable resource allocation system can be implemented that is adopted by all parties involved, the future of the industry will be assured. Otherwise, the only option that presents itself is the physical closure of access roads and the physical restriction of motorized access to a number of wilderness lakes. If the situation is not resolved in the near future, Ontario will continue to witness the slow erosion of this regionally important tourism sector. The province will lose a valuable source of employment, tax revenue, and economic diversity in a region that has limited economic development options. Anglers will lose the ability to seek a variety of angling experiences in Ontario. Without a workable resolution, no sector of either the angling or commercial tourism communities will benefit. 0 0
480
TOURISM
AS A CONFLICTING
LAND
USE
Acknowledgments-This article would not have been possible without the ongoing communications the author had with representatives of a number of industry, government, and public interest groups involved in the dispute between 1985 and 1989. The author would like to acknowledge the informal input offered by tourist operators throughout Northern Ontario; members of the executive committee and board of directors of the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association, representatives from other provincial Outfitting Associations, field and head office staff from the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, field and head oflice staff from the Ministry of Natural Resources, and spokespersons for the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.
REFERENCES Anderson, D. H., and P. J. Brown 1984 The Displacement Process in Recreation. Journal of Leisure Research 16(l): 61-73. Best, C. 1989 Timber Management Or Lack of It. The Tourist Outfitter 24(4): 11. Blake, L. 1986 NOT0 Fisheries Committee Report/86. The Tourist Outfitter 21(12):4. CBC Television 1985 Venture (September 30). cc0 1987 Towards a Conservation Strategy for Ontario. Toronto: The Conservation Council of Ontario. 1989 Ontario’s Environmental Track Record: A Review of Significant Ontario Government Conservation Initiatives. Toronto: The Conservation Council of Ontario. Cronin, L. 1990 A Strategy for Tourism and Sustainable Development. A discussion paper presented at the centre for Environmental Management and Planning Workshop on Sustainable Tourism Development, Valletta, Malta. DFO 1987 Canada’s Recreational Fisheries: An Overview and Description of Department of Fisheries and Oceans Programs. Ottawa: Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1988a Sport Fishing in Canada, 1985. Ottawa: Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 198813 Sport Fishing in Ontario, 1985. Ottawa: Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Hendee, J. C., G. H. Stankey, and R. C. Lucas 1978 Wilderness Management. Miscellaneous Publication No. 1365. Washington: USDA Forestry Service. Jacob, G. R., and R. Schreyer 1980 Conflict in Outdoor Recreation: A Theoretical Perspective. Journal of Leisure Research 12(4):368-380. Julber, E. 1972 Let’s Open Up Our Wilderness Area. Reader’s Digest 100(60):125-128. Kerrio, V. 1986 Remarks by the Honourable Vincent Kerrio, Ontario Minister of Natural Resources, to the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association Annual Convention. The Tourist Outfitter 21(1):4-7. 1987 Remarks by the Honourable Vincent Kerrio, Ontario Minister of Natural Resources, to the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association Annual Convention. The Tourist Outfitter 22(2):4-8. Manning, R. E. 1985 Crowding Norms in Backcountrv Settings: A Review and Synthesis. Tournal ” of Leasure Research 17(2):79-85. ’ Marsh, J. 1986 Wilderness Tourism. In Tourism and The Environment: Conflict or Harmony, pp. 47-59. Ottawa: The Canadian Society of Environmental Biologists. Matheison, A., and G. Wall 1983 Tourism Economic, Physical and Social Impacts. London: Longmann. McKercher, R. 1988 Economic Growth for All Industries-A Tourism PerspectiveA Presentation to NorthCARE. Presented at the first annual NorthCARE Conference, Sudbury, Ontario.
BOB
MCKERCHER
481
MNR 1986 Timber Management Guidelines for the Protection of Tourism Values. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1987 Northeast Region Tourism Strategy. Sudbury: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1990a A Proposed Strategic Plan for Ontario’s Fisheries, SPOF II Draft, January 1990. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1990b SPOF II Allocation of Aquatic Resources-Working Group Report April 1990. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Mogford, M. 1987 Remarks by Mary Mogford, Deputy Minister of Natural Resources, to the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association Annual Conference. The Tourist Outfitter 22(2):9-17. MTR 1986 Attributes for Success: The Tourism Resort Industry in Northwestern Ontario. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. Munford, R. 1985 Fisheries Committee Report. The Tourist Outfitter 20(12):4-7. 1987 Presidents Message The Tourist Outfitter 22(2): l-l 1. Netboy, A. 1974 Can We Solve Our High Country Needs Like Europe. Yes. American Forester 89(2):34, 55. NOTd ’ 1985a The Outfitters Manual-By Law No. 1. North Bay: Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association. 198513 Tourism Tomorrow, Towards a Canadian Tourism Strategy: A Northern Ontario Perspective. North Bay: Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association. 1986a Response to the Report on the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment. North Bay: Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association. 198613 NOT0 Response to the Espanola District Fisheries Management Plan. North Bay: Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association. 1987a NOT0 Member Industry Profile. The Tourist Outfitter 22(5):12-15. 1987b Survey Report. The Tourist Outfitter 22(5):8-l 1. 1987c National Issues in Outfitting. The Tourist Outfitter 22(10):12-13. 1987d Northern Ontario Tourism Strategy, A White Paper on the Future of Tourism in the North. North Bay: Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association. 1988a Northern Ontario-Official Publication of the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association. North Bay: Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association. 1988b 1987 Great Year for Tourism. The Tourist Outfitter 23(6):5-6. 1988c Tourism Large Employer of Native People. The Tourist Outfitter 23(6):22. 1988d Analysis of Gross Revenues of NOT0 Members. Unpublished research paper. North Bay: Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association. 1988e Notes for a Presentation at the OFAH Annual Meetings, Saturday, February 27. 1988. North Bav: Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association. 1989’Toward the Opiimum Use of The Forests of Ontario. North Bay: Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association. Pearse, P. H. 1988 Rising to the Challenge. Ottawa: The Canadian Wildlife Federation. Wilson, H. Ontario: Smoothwater Wilderness 1984 Temagami Canoe Routes. Temagami, Outfitters. 1986 Logger and Canoeist Can Co-exist. The Tourist Outfitter 21(8):6-10. Wisneski, M 1985 Crown Land Report. The Tourist Outfitter 20(12):17. 1986 Crown Land. ‘The Tourist Outfitter 21(12):9. Submitted 18 October 1990 Revised copy submitted 20 May 1991 Accepted 29 July 1991 Refereed anonymously Coordinating Editor: Geoffrey Wall
