As of Saturday night the Gatineau Park Protection Committee has a website at www.gatineauparc.ca
Ski Trail Reports- 2012-02-04 by Megan McTavish from N/A [Other]XC Ottawa is racing at Nakketok at the Eastern Canadian Championships. Come on out and watch! If you are looking for condition reports for Gatineau Park, check out skitrails.xcottawa.ca for reports from other local skiers. Continue reading → […]
- 2012-02-04 by Megan McTavish from N/A [Other]XC Ottawa is racing at Nakketok at the Eastern Canadian Championships. Come on out and watch! If you are looking for condition reports for Gatineau Park, check out skitrails.xcottawa.ca for reports from other local skiers. Continue reading → […]
- 2012-02-03 by Ken Trischuk from P8 [Chelsea]Beautiful warm evening for a ski. Ever so light snow falling as I skated along which only seemed to act as a lubricant to the already fast conditions. Skated a nice loop of the Doldrums, up Fortune to gossip and then down Ridge to Penguin and added t.... Continue reading → […]
- 2012-02-03 by Jo-Ann Holden from P10 [Fortune]P10 - Ridge - to the bench - Lookout A quick ski with few photos. Conditions were very good and at 8:00 I had the park almost to myself (2 other cars in the parking lot). Interestingly, I was asked by a park attendant if I had a pass. This is .... Continue reading → […]
- 2012-02-04 by Megan McTavish from N/A [Other]
Follow
It should be pointed out that this new site is really just a reposting of a deleted Wikipedia page, “Politics of Gatineau Park”.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stoneacres
2. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Politics_of_Gatineau_Park
3. http://wikibin.org/articles/politics-of-gatineau-park.html
The politics of gatineau park wiki page was deleted because it had serious ‘conflict of interest’, ‘point of view’ and ‘copyright’ infringments.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Politics_of_Gatineau_Park
This wasn’t the only Wiki site deleted; Both the ‘New Woodlands Preservation League’ and the ‘Gatineau Park Protection Committee’ pages also got axed, but for additional reasons. Here’s a quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Woodlands_Preservation_League
“As can best be discerned, the organization is informal in nature, is not registered or incorporated, has no headquarters, publications or website and has only two members.”
That’s great that you’ve now started a GPPC website, but tell us someday, Mr. Murray, does the GPPC have any substance beyond swiped wiki pages and a few maps? Does it have any power, influence or resources or is it just as wiki suggests, a soapbox?
NOTE: I have no involvement with the NCC and do not reside in or near Gatineau Park.
Forgive me, Mr. Murray, if I remain skeptical of any individual or group who self-proclaims themselves as protectors of the park.
Furthermore, the delicate politics of Gatineau park use, management and protection must be handled carefully and with total neutrality; any lack of such only results in further polarization of the park’s real protectors, namely its residents, users and its stewart, the NCC.
Pete – if that is your real name – even the NCC agrees that private property must be eliminated in the park. It is only a matter of time. The fact is Gatineau Park was supposed to be a national park, and it is only due to the “politics” played by the residents (and the NCC being scarred off) that the park does not have greater protection.
This is a public park, and the temporary residents will eventually be vacated. Until then, it is a privilege for them to live in this public space. It belongs to all the people of Canada, Pete. It is only legislative protection that will provide – force – the required stewardship. Thanks for your interest.
Mr. Brown, you are uninformed and betray a self interest.
Suggesting that the GPPC has no validity because it has a small following is irrelevant. The facts and media record speak for itself. Mr. Murray and the GPPC have done an outstanding job exposing the NCC’s wrongdoings and the contradictions in its mandate.
How can a land development corporation be entrusted with preserving and enhancing a national gem like Gatineau Park? Hacking off 8 square kilometers of park land is unacceptable. How can you defend this? Does this enhance the environment?
How can you defend the fact that Meech Lake residents lobbied the Municiplaity of Chelsea to put up a road block at Meech Lake? What about the public interest?
The GPPC has never infringed upon any copyrights, get your facts straight. It is the source of factual information on most matters relating to Gatineau Park.
Why have Gatineau Park residents who have clearly broken environmental laws not been taken to task? Stewards of the land?
Exposing such things makes some people uncomfortable because the truth upsets the apple cart of decorum and fraud which you obviously support.
You should take an introductory course in philosophy (at the high school level) and learn how to reason and think clearly.
Because it has been said : When reason is against a man, a man will be against reason.” And you obviously are.
Gentlemen. Please refrain from comments of a personal nature. I would like GuideGatineau to enable airing of different opinions but I do not want it to become a forum for invective.
Thanks Charles.
The point is that since you offer this space up to the public, you will encounter this type of debate. You will notice though that it was not we – the Gatineau Park Protection Committee – who began this dialogue, but rather someone who commented on your posting who took the liberty right off the bat to discredit the Committee. As Bruce notes above, all of our work is based on research obtained often at great pains over the course of several years, through Access to Information requests, digging through the National Archives, questions on the Order Paper of both Houses of Parliament and submissions to various public bodies.
Until you decide to close debate on these pages, we must and will respond to those who provide misinformation or mischaracterize and misrepresent our findings and our position. We have proven that the NCC has misled the public on many fronts and part of our mission is to expose this to the public.
We have established our own website because the cowards at Wikipedia proclaimed our page on the Politics of Gatineau Park to express a point of view. With the exhaustive series of footnotes we provide on our website, our information is factual. It is open, and it is transparent. No Access to Information request needed.
Until now, the body of evidence has been burried in archives and in data bases. Until now this has not been shared with the public. What we ask of the public is whether they can countenance continually being lied to and misled by the NCC, as well as private property interests in the park, when the evidence is right before them.
Thanks for the mediation Charles. In case the 2 above posters haven’t made their relation to the GPPC entirely clear, they are:
-Mr Andrew Mcdermott, Co-chair of GPPC,
-Bruce Holland, President of GPPC,
Together with Mr Murray, Co-chair of GPPC, they make up GPPC. Welcome gentlemen, it is a great pleasure to have GPPC as my audience.
Please, Mr. Holland, President of GPPC, review your accusations as I have never claimed that the GPPC was in copyright violation; It was the wiki page that was claimed in violation(see link), I never claimed that GPPC wrote the page, Mr Murray did. One might then infer that the GPPC was in violation, but I never made that claim. Also, high schools do not offer a Philosophy course in my district, perhaps they do in Dallas, Texas?
Seriously now, this talk of evicting/expropriating Gatineau Park residents to enable a National Park has me concerned. Wasn’t it the early residents who defined the park’s culture and history? Where would we have a picnic, if not for King? Where would we ski, if not for Clifford? Where would we sunbathe nude, if not for Wilson? Where would we pray, if not for the Capucin?
Look, I’m all for the park being set for public good, but the park stands the best chance when all three groups(Users, Residents, NCC) work together to define its culture, history and bounderies for future generations.
If the GPPC ever shifts its focus from evicting park residents and exposing NCC follies to real colaboration, verified by a 3rd party, they may quickly find me as a supportive member.
Please, Mr. Murray, review your claim that I should “get my facts straight”. Aside from introducing the GPPC and correcting Mr Holland’s claim, the only other fact that I present in my last post is one I firmly stand behind:
–”THE PARK STAND THE BEST CHANCE WHEN ALL THREE GROUPS(USERS, RESIDENTS, NCC) WORK TOGETHER TO DEFINE ITS CULTURE, HISTORY AND BOUNDERIES FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.”–
So, please, GPPC, identify exactly what facts are incorrect rather than the usual, “get your facts straight”, then quickly move to point out NCC’s faults.
None of this criticism distracts me off topic; Can anyone beyond the GPPC legitimize this self proclaimed, ‘Protection Committee’?
The Hartzog arguement has been tried before on wikipedia, anyone interested can review the effort here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gatineau_Park
Anyone interested in the politics of the Park might consult the recent exchange between Mr. Milling, Wakefield Mill Innkeeper, and Mr. Murray,
Here, http://lowdownonline.com/2010/01/gatineau-park-not-a-public-space/
Here, http://lowdownonline.com/2010/02/jp-murray-get-off-your-attacking-high-horse/
And here, http://lowdownonline.com/2010/02/gatineau-park-deserves-better/
Please, Mr. Murray, refrain from comments of a personal nature.
When I explained why the “Politics of Gatineau Park” wiki page got axed I also provided a link right next to that statement, like a source.
Also, your second quote above transforms “(see link)” to “(…)”. Not sure why you omitted that?
Anyone interested in the reasons why the wiki page got deleted can revisit the link I provided above here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Politics_of_Gatineau_Park
Somehow I doubt it is as Mr. Murray describes above “A few overly zealous editors at Wikipedia decided to remove what I had written because it got too hot for them to handle. The truth hurts and they just couldn’t take it…”, let the reader decide…
Thank for providing another link to the GPPC webpage. I have already skimmed thru it, and find it lacks in describing the motive behind the GPPC’s behaviour. I have learned far more about the GPPC’s possible motives here, in this discourse.
None of this criticism distracts me off topic; Again, can anyone beyond the GPPC legitimize this self proclaimed, ‘Protection Committee’?