Silveira says ways to save Springwater Provincial Park was never discussed

By Cheryl Browne, Barrie Examiner November 29, 2012 

SPRINGWATER TWP.  – Tossing away 90 years of sanctuary for wild birds and animals has ruffled the feathers of residents and politicians alike.

A Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) decision to restructure Springwater Provincial Park and move the wildlife to other locations has raised the hackles of local citizens and politicians on both Barrie city council and Springwater Township council.

A meeting between MNR staff, two save Springwater Park coalitions and several politicians at Queen’s Park, Wednesday, didn’t offer as much hope as raise more questions for local attendees.

“The meeting took only 30 minutes and we had many questions never answered,” said Barrie Coun. Peter Silveira. “We mentioned our concerns and explained why the park needs to be kept open and running.

“For me the highlight of the meeting was the lack of even entertaining any discussion in how we can develop a business plan to save the park,” he added. “The only way we can save Springwater park is working with other municipalities and the public in general to create a business plan and maybe run the park ourselves.

“This is an investment for the next generation.”

Ian Taylor, founder of Friends of Springwater Provincial Park group on Facebook, said he, too, was quite disappointed with the meeting.

“We, as a group, all asked the MNR to just give us some more time to show that we can increase revenue and get partnerships to take over the park. This was turned down,” Taylor said.

Barrie council is sending a letter to the MNR requesting a list of conditions required to keep the 193-hectare facility viable.

Concerned that the park would close because of a $70,000 deficit, Coun. Alex Nuttall said a fundraising campaign could erase that concern.

But Rob Laidlaw, executive director of Zoocheck Canada, has reviewed the investigative report prepared by Michele Hamers on the park’s wildlife compound, and said it might be better for the animals if they were relocated.

The conclusions and recommendations of the report indicate the investigator found that the care of the animals was not up to par with current wildlife sanctuary standards.

‘It is clear that the animals at Springwater Provincial Park do not receive appropriate housing and care,’ the report stated. ‘Species specific behaviours were hardly observed, in contrary to abnormal behaviours and inactivity. Diets do not appear to meet the animals’ nutritional requirements, nor do they stimulate species specific behaviour. Continuation of this animal caretaker regime is not desirable.’

The report suggests two options: closing the wildlife display and relocating all of the animals to other wildlife compounds with higher animal welfare standards; or relocating the larger animals including a black bear, a gray wolf, a lynx and a bobcat.

The report suggests investing in new enclosures for the birds — or start training them — and changing the enclosures for the foxes and raccoons.

There are 29 animals in the compound, including a black bear, a timber wolf, two foxes (one red, one silver), two racoons (one is albino), two wild turkeys, a wild turkey vulture, a great horned owl, a peregrine falcon a rough legged hawk, a trumpeter swan, two mute swans, three Canadian geese, four white-tailed deer, a bobcat, two lynx, two bald eagles and two skunks.

MNR spokeswoman Jolanta Kowalski said it costs about $59,000 each year to provide food, shelter and medical care and staffing at the park.

“It would need about $1 million in capital investment to keep it up to the safety levels required and move forward, plus the ongoing annual costs,” she said. “We can’t continue to operate the parks in a loss (of revenue).”

Kowalski said the enclosures have been maintained regularly, including repairs to fencing, hinges and posts and that the pens are cleaned daily and animal feces and fallen branches are removed.

Springwater park is not classified as a zoo. The MNR classifies it as a wildlife display that houses captive animals unable to be rehabilitated and released due to injury or habituation to humans.

‘I’ve heard some people characterize it as a sanctuary because some of the animals may have been seized, orphaned or arrived from other kinds of less than ideal situations,’ Laidlaw wrote in his report. ‘That does make it a sanctuary.’

Midhurst Secondary Plan receives approval for first phase; other provincial concerns remain before OMB http://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/2012/11/29/midhurst-secondary-plan-receives-approval-for-first-phase-other-provincial-concerns-remain-before-omb

November 29, 2012

SPRINGWATER TWP. – It might be snowing, but it’s heating up in Midhurst.

An announcement that 300 of the original 756 hectares had been removed from the appeal process by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) sent planners scrambling and neighbours screaming about the Ontario Municipal Board process.

“It’s a sad day for Springwater, it’s a sad day for Simcoe County and it’s a sad day for Ontario residents,” said David Strachan, a local resident and member of the Midhurst Ratepayers Association.

Strachan and his coalition’s angst springs from a news release detailing how the ministry partially withdrew its appeal of the Midhurst Secondary Plan, known as OPA 38, saying that it now complies with the province’s Places to Grow amendment.

The remaining 456 hectares in the OPA 38 are still under appeal by the province.

The ratepayers are disappointed the original planning for an additional 6,500 houses has grown to 10,000 new homes in the new official plan.

The township passed the resolution in November 2008 and the County of Simcoe offered its stamp of approval on OPA 38 in 2011. But initially, the province stepped in to appeal the plan, stating it didn’t meet the requirements of their Places to Grow Act.

Amendment No. 1 was written in January of this year, and it seems the province has released at least a portion of the land for development in Springwater.

“The government of Ontario now appears to have abandoned its principles and has approved the first phase of the Midhurst Secondary Plan to build on 300 hectares of Ontario Class 1 and 2 farmland,” Strachan said.

“That in spite of a three-million-dollar intergovernmental action plan study which recommended restricting development to the existing primary settlement areas of Bradford, Alliston, Barrie, Orillia, Collingwood and Midland/Penetanguishene,” he added. “There is no Ontario-defined primary settlement area in Springwater Township and not even an approved settlement area in Midhurst.”

At the township office, the planning department is handling the news with caution.

“I am sympathetic for those people who have concerns about growth,” said Robert Brindley, chief administrative officer for the Township of Springwater.

“However, the minister has determined our plan is appropriate. And, the minister was also wise to hold back the remaining (land).

“Now we have time to do it right.”

Brindley points out that the township is in the early stages of the planning process with only phases 1 and 2 of the environmental assessment concerning design completed. Now it will review if and where development is feasible.

At this early stage, Brindley said they are still unsure which 300 hectares will be developed into subdivisions, but he noted some homes will be built on both the east and west sides of Bayfield Street north of Barrie.

“We agree that the remainder of the secondary plan should remain at the Ontario Municipal Board,” Springwater Mayor Linda Collins said in a news release. “Springwater fully supports the approach taken by the ministry.

“In addition to the lands released for development, the secondary plan will designate over 1,200 hectares of environmental protection or natural heritage thus ensuring the continued enjoyment by Springwater residents of our natural surroundings,” she added.

Cheryl Shindruk, a member of the Midhurst Landowner’s Group which is in favour of planned development in Springwater, said the group is pleased with the process and the time frames the ministry has laid out.

“They’ve done a good job to see that it will be done in a managed way,” she said.

But Kate Harries, of the Aware Simcoe environmental protection group, said they’re frustrated that important provincial decisions concerning the Places to Grow amendment are being made without a sitting parliament.

“We’re very disappointed in the Liberal government,” Harries said. “We’re very disappointed this is happening when there’s no opposition, like the NDP, who would have had many questions for (Minister Bob) Chiarelli.

“But yes, we do have hope,” she added. “We hope this is reversible because there’s very strong grassroots opposition to this. And we’re not giving up.”