Discussions

On April 11th at 530 at the Kemnay Community Hall, the RM of Whitehead council will be conducting a public hearing on a proposed increase in size of privately owned land within its region, from 10 to 90 acres, and a secondary hearing will be held to receive representation on a proposed , privately owned " Backwoods Campground Development " on the proposed site 3 miles south of Kemnay on Stanely Road,117w.  
 
There will be several community members in attendance who will be opposing the proposal, on the basis of concern for many environmental issues including wildlife impact, water and pollution impact, fire safety, childrens safety, as well a major concerns regarding the increase in demand on infrastructure and roadways as well as other various safety, financial, and logistical concerns.  
 
While we respect the proponents intent to manage their property, we all also have a responsibility as community members to ensure a safe, sustainable environment and maintain those practice standards within our region, many of which we feel are at risk if this proposal goes through, and we wish to address those concerns.  
 
While we understand that camping opportunities are a wonderful experience for all, we must point out that a rural agricultural site is not a safe, nor will it ever be a safe sustainable place for a family campground to be developed.  
 
We encourage everyone who lives within the area south of Kemnay who may be affected by this proposed change to contact their local Reeve, and attend the meeting to discuss concerns and ask questions .  
 
Edited by Bsuds, 2023-04-06 13:48:01

That would be a really nice area for camping.

Brandon doesn’t have many camping spots. This might be a nice fit.

A new campsite would be nice. However, this one is a Backwoods Campground, with no power, no water, only would have portable washroom stations that need to get pumped out, and is a very short distance from an unguarded stream that is not child safe. Last year, there was a bear sighting that was reported as well, there are raccoons and many other animals that ruin tents, and campers are expected to take their own garbage when they leave. I've camped in enough places over the years to know that even in serviced provincial sites, there are people who leave garbage on the site, in the trees, in the parking area, when they leave. This site would have garbage and animals everywhere.  
Also, as one who has an rv and lives out here, country roads are no place for rv travel.  
When harvest season is on, the air is very dusty, combines and trucks are out until 3 in the morning, and, I can't stress this enough, it is not safe for kids who are camping to be wandering anywhere when our big equipment is on the roads or the fields. The list of problems with this proposal goes on and on.

I agree with the previous comments: may be good opportunity to expand camping options near Brandon and provide connections to nature. Many campgrounds have access to natural areas that is not monitored. Can you please share a link to the original proposal.

BSUDS, I'm not a camping aficionado, but all your points would seem to be present at any campground I've ever seen, how do you make any river or stream "child safe" short of creating a glass dome over the whole length ?  
 
The google overhead map of the area doesn't show anything larger that a bubbling creek  
 
As to cleanliness that's up to the campers themself and then the campground owners, if it goes beyond then call law enforcement or bylaw  
 
There are bear sightings everywhere because they roam around like all wild life does, raccoons i:ncluded.  
 
If the campground is right next to farmers fields, those farmers should be speaking up requiring the campground owner to install perimeter fencing to keep people off their property.  
 
people roaming off the beaten path can be dangerous anywhere, should all campgrounds be banned because of it lol  
 
Edited by hutchster, 2023-04-07 11:30:18

FWIW fencing won’t do a damp thing. People think that they have the right to go wherever they want and they’ll cut or destroy fences to gain illegal access or remove warning signs. Enforcement won’t do anything either . Been there, got the T shirt very recently . The authorities won’t do a thing.  
 
Edited by Farmergeorge, 2023-04-07 12:40:53

I sense a pattern of anytime someone in the Kemnay area has a new idea for a business, the residents quickly get it shut down. More businesses should be a good thing. Not a bad thing. My thoughts.

like NIMBY excuses. At most Provincial and National parks, your going to have to deal with wildlife. Many campers would love to camp in remote campsites. While I can't see campers with huge 5th wheels or motor homes going to this campground, but tenters would.  
 
This seems like whenever something that would increase tourism to the area is proposed, it gets rejected.

When one has to deal with destroyed fences, illegal vehicular access and vandalism to private land and protected areas for wildlife then I don’t think that it’s making excuses. People should have some respect for others and their property. It’s sadly lacking.  
If you can’t properly respect the areas that you visit and act responsibly then stay away, you are not wanted.  
I’ve seen too many beautiful areas stained by the blight of tourism that often does little to enhance economic prosperity as it’s portrayed.  
 
Edited by Farmergeorge, 2023-04-07 14:38:15

My points, let me be a little more clear: this location is also directly across from my property. DIRECTLY ACROSS.  
Putting up a "business" in the form of a campsite affects my property value. It affects my safety. It affects landowners wthin a five mile radius in more ways than you can imagine. I have every right to bring up the very valid safety concerns I have because I know how life out here is. I work in an industry where I know how reckless people can be, and from events I have run in the community, I know how much people can and will damage property every chance they get. People will very likely say " if you don't like it, move". That is not an option, and I should not be forced into it.  
As for the development of a campsite, let's look at even more issues in a rural agricultural site:  
Do you know how much dust gets kicked up on gravel roads during the summer? How much noise there is from campers at all hours of the day?Do you know how long the scent stays in the air when crops are sprayed? Do you really think campers will enjoy that? No, they will complain, they will act out, and they potentially will come onto our property to complain, and we are most certainly NOT having anything to do with this site.  
Do you know how much fire risk generators can be in dry conditions? How far away fire reponse trucks are? Dont tell me people will listen to the rules and actually not start campfires during burn bans, because believe me, I know there will be people who will ignore that rule at an unsupervised campground, because I've witnessed it at provincial sites every year.  
How much risk is there for tree disease with the transport of firewood? People can say there are garbage removal issues at all campsites, but at those locations, garbage doesn't get eaten by cattle, it doesn't end up in fields and in farm equipment. Out here, it will.  
How often, in extreme bad weather, or when there is a problem at the sites, do you think people will come over to our visible property to complain because they will think we are the property owners? Even with private property signs up, how much do you think people will really obey those rules? There will be some who will still step foot on our property out of their own curiosity. When people get bored on the site, they will start walking the roads. Most people will be street smart and safe, others will blatantly get in the way of implements and traffic. There is an area of land very close by designated for Duck conservation. How much will people go out there to feed ducks human food, and cause problems for the ecosystem there?  
When an RV is traveling down the road, and a large tractor is coming from the opposite direction, how is anyone supposed to turn around to give right of way? We have uneven gravel roads and ditches, not two lane traffic with places to turn around. With increased traffic comes increase use on infrastructure. This raises all of our property taxes because of something we never asked for.  
Overhead Google maps will show a "bubbling stream" but I can assure you from floods we have had over the years, torrential rain turns that into a deep, rushing stream, REAL QUICK. Kids of any generation are curious by nature, and this is rural country, not a resort site with lifeguards on site.. Safety needs to be followed, and there is not enough guarantee visitors will follow those rules, which puts all of those who have property and make our living out here at risk. All it takes is one spark from a cigarette someone tosses in a ditch to ruin hundreds of thousands of dollars of farmland , housing, and equipment.  
This proposed development is NOT a safe plan, it is NOT meant for an agricultural location. It is meant for a park. A provincial site with protected resources, with manageable aspects.  
 
Edited by Bsuds, 2023-04-07 14:44:37

As someone who lives in the general area, I'm at a loss...I struggle to understand what market there would be for an un-serviced campground in that location. Who would go? There are much better options.  
 
From an infrastructure perspective it also makes no sense. And the need to take your own garbage with you? I'm not from Manitoba and the amount of garbage strewn about within mere feet of a garbage bin is ludicrous. People will toss it in the ditch.  
 
I don't get how this is a viable business and I definitely don't think the RM of Whitehead is a good place for this type of operation. There are few services here - the municipal fire service is based in Alexander, the municipality relies on the RCMP for what little policing there is, etc. There's no garbage pickup, road maintenance is... What you'd expect in an RM with a tiny population. I can't imagine there's much tax revenue involved, so what on earth is the benefit of allowing this?  
 
Edited by JosephC, 2023-04-07 17:47:00

BSUDS, your second response makes much more sense, I would lead with that at the community hearing and stay away from wildlife and safe creek stuff  
 
And I can't help but agree with JosephC, I really don't see the feasibility of this , if it was just off Hwy1 it might make sense for the passing traffic but there are no touristy attractions that would draw people to the area, its farmland as far as the eye can see here.  
 
Maybe that's a win/win for area residents with concerns, even if it gets approval and goes ahead what are the odds it stays in business for more than a year ?  
 
The other thing people might want to bring up is the kemnay bridge height, will an RV or large 5th wheel go under it fine or will it lead to more bridge strikes ?

NIMBY at its best.  
 
Let me list a few of the things that can't be developed in the RMs and small towns near Brandon.  
 
Butcher shop  
Bitcoin seacan  
Gravel pit  
Multi unit housing  
Trailer park  
Tiny homes  
Wedding venue  
Campgrounds  
 
 
It doesn't seem to matter what the development is anymore.  
 
People see a development proposal regardless of what it is and automatically it's what about the negative wildlife impacts, what about the water they grasp at anything that might be remotely related.  
 
I see now that people in this thread are in one breath deciding there is no market for a campground in this area and in the next they argue about all the negative impacts the traffic will have. They even argue that their combine is basically the only vehicle that should be on the road in question and what happens if they meet a vehicle.  
 
The safety of the children at this location is definately not a concern. Most campgrounds are located at lakes or rivers. Why would this seasonal Creek be such a safety concern. Wait a minute bears have been seen in the area this could be extremely dangerous, we should all write a letter to the provincial and federal governments to close all campgrounds where bears have been seen. What about the fire department but being close by??? Let's again write the federal and provincial government and close all of the provincial and national parks not located within 10 km of a fire hall. Thanks to some of the posters in this thread it had become clear that most of the campgrounds in the province are no longer safe to operate and we should fight to have them shut down.  
 
My guess is it doesn't matter if the owner of the proposed property wanted to build a barn or a house or a grain bin. The neighborhood would have something negative to say.

And you don't get it. This proposed site is directly across from me and it will affect the my land value and my privacy. Your point about us complaining is ridiculously off topic. None of us have ever said anything about compaining about the sawe issues in provincial parks, so stop trying to twist our words. Provincial parks are meant for camping, because that is what they are used for : camping. They are managed, maintained, developed with proper infrastructure, and treated as such. Agricultural areas are not a resort. They are not a vacation destination. This is not a site seeing tourist attraction. It is not your home away from home.  
Wildlife sightings at parks are not a problem, because they are not located near properties or family dwellings. Wildlife has vast amounts of space to be left alone and to adapt to. Out here, if there is still a bear here and still has its dwelling on or near that property, it wont just leave because there is a conditional use permit by the owners.  
This proposed site, and I can't believe I have to state this again for you, but I will, IS DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM MY PROPERTY. Do you get it? No? Let me make a few more points.  
People are terribly bad at following rules and even worse at staying off of private property.  
Want to know why I have concerns about garbage? Here: the proposed site won't have garbage bins. People will be responsible for their own disposal and clean up. Some will be good at this, others not so good. Want an example? Go to the blue recycling bins at the Keystone south end after any given weekend, and take a look at how bad people are at following rules and properly disposing of things at an unmanned area.  
Again, MY PROPERTY IS DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE PROPOSED SITE. when the wind blows garbage left behind into my 10 acres, this shouldn't be my problem to deal with,but it inevitably will be.  
When people at the site have an issue, or complaint, where do you think they will go to? My house, WHICH IS DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE PROPOSED SITE, is most visible, so people who have complaints, or people who are even curious, or just really bad at directions, will be stepping onto my property. I live here to get away from the city, not to have more people come here and ruin it for us.  
You made a weak point about us having fire location concerns? Provincial parks have hydrants. They have air fire response systems in place. Houses, properties, livelihoods aren't affected as much in provincial parks. Out here fire response is limited, and a valid concern. The proposed site is one mile of dry brush, leaves, trees. If a fire starts from someone else's carelessness, that's hundreds of acres of agricultural land, houses and property at risk. This is our livelihood, and we will represent our interests accordingly because we KNOW the land, we treat it as our own, and you do not.  
This proposal is not a safe plan. This is not a good business plan.  
This is rural country life. It's real life, not a TV show. Things can go bad out here real quick, and this is NOT an ideal site for a campground, no matter how much you try to justify it.  
You say this is NIMBY mentality? Cool. Put up a campground in your backyard. Let's see what your story is then.

The notice of public hearing with an image of the area.  
 
https://whitehead.municipalwebsites.ca/ckfinder/connector?command=Proxy&lang=en&type=Files¤tFolder=%2F&hash=c245c263ce0eced480effe66bbede6b4d46c15ae&fileName=Public%20Hearing%20Notice%20V%20%26%20C%20.pdf  
 
By the sounds of it, this is a backcountry type of campground where campers are going to be the minimalist. They will either be tenting or using a very small camper or van. They will be experienced in remote camping and want to experience the raw nature. By looking at the area, this would be a prime use for this area.  
 
https://www.atmosphere.ca/outdoor-advice/camping-advice/backcountry-camping-advice.html  
 
It's not going to be a full featured KOA or Good Sam's campground with full services. It's not going to be a place where people will bring 40' 5th wheels or motorhomes.

at it's best!! Provincial parks with fire hydrants? And the property value excuse is also lame.

The official proposal from the proponent (not the one the rm sent in the link), and I can assure you, there is a three phase plan including potentual seasonal sites,and if the site were to pass approval, and if it became succesful enough(which i dont believe it will, but nonetheless plan for it), there is continency to re address possible power and water infrastructure in a few years, therefore, larger rv use would be increased in the location. While this is a private venture, it would inevitably involve infrastructure upgrades that the RM would have to be involved with, and this would inevitably raise local taxes, which I am opposed to.  
 
Edited by Bsuds, 2023-04-08 11:28:01

Can you share the official proposal? Right now we're just going off of hearsay.  
 
Looks like a nice place for some cheap tenting. It could be nice right near that little stream and away from the highway.

The official proposal, that I ha e been provided by a member of council, and of which is now considered public records stated in the allocation and consideration process.  
(I will leave out all names of the proposing party, and only show the proposed statements of intent):  
 
Conditional Use Request  
 
Our request is for approval to develop a campground on a portion ..........the use would be recreational (a camping area).  
 
The portion of the property (refer to map) is highlighted and represents approximately 100 acresof rough terrain which currently has shrub and tree cover.  
 
Once approval is granted, development will proceed as follows.  
 
Phase 1: commencing Spring/Summer 2023 we will proceed to clean sites for RV and Tent Camping The area highlighted on the attached map is a footprint that can support over 250 sites. Development will be based on growing demands.  
 
During phase 1 the camping model will be launched and offered as a "backwoods" camping program. Backwoods camping provides portable pump out washrooms stations and above ground grey water holding tanks (to function as) dump stations. Each station will serve 10 to 15 campsites which will be serviced on a weekly basis or as often as is necessary basic.  
 
During the backwoods phase all campers will be required to remove their garbage and transport it with them out of the campground when they leave  
 
Phase 2: development of seasonal camp sites-Fall 2023  
 
In the fall we will prepare 20 to 30 backwoods seasonal sites and begin to make them available to those who desire a long-term camp site. RV's and cabanas can remain 12 months of the year. Some marketing will be done to assess the demand for sites in the area.  
 
Phase 3: further development and the rate of development will be determined by the public's response. In phase 3, we will assess the value of installing/ offering individual septic holding tanks for seasonal sites. Campers access to water will be re-evaluated at this time and an alternative may be consideration.  
 
1.) Municipal map (SE % Section Range)  
 
2.) Quarter map-highlighted bush area

like it would be a great place to camp.

Sounds like a great proposal. Thanks to the OP for sharing even though she was against it and most seem to be for it.

My pleasure to share. As with most of the people who actually live in the area, I am also pleased to say that most of us including some elected representatives are not in favor, and will not vote to approve.  
Everyone please remember to book your camping sites in the many provincial parks on their new website.  
Enjoy.  
 
Edited by Bsuds, 2023-04-08 13:06:15

You acreage owners always whine about things that might disrupt what you think country is, and what rural life is about. As previously mentioned you put the axe on an abattoir, that would help people like us provide farm fresh meat to people. Thanks for thinking of the ranchers on that one, and in the next sentence complain about store meat prices. All you "country living" acreage owners are the first to complain about services, washboard on our roads, not plowed to get to work, flooding, dust control etc. I live in the same RM ( i actually despise the RM) but deal with it all without complaining to the masses. Living in this RM is doing your own snow clearing, because all the acreage owners are needing a grader or they cant get to work. You want city services with a bigger yard. Cant wait to hear the complaining this spring when south of Kemnay gets flooded out again.  
Garbage, i get it all the time blowing in from idiots that stop on our road to take a piss, or throw their dirty diapers out on the road. BTW you can pay for garbage pickup in your yard, we do. Your points about water and animals are laughable feeding ducks... ya wild ducks will be begging for bread hahaha, and lots of campgrounds out there that are not provincially run, with water at them swim at own risk. Your concern with travel on gravel with an RV, you are talking 3 miles of gravel up to 7 from #10, not even a valid point, go north for some real camping if you think 7 miles is bad. Your concern with fire, it can happen in your yard as well, or the field beside you in the fall from a hot exhaust pipe, you gonna start going after us farmers for the fire risk we pose in the fall ? I know of a wheel that came off a trailer, and burnt 30 acres of wheat, $hit happens. Meeting a tractor with a RV, please, we have tractors with air seeders meet at roads every spring and figure it out, your point is not valid.  
You want to control something that isn't yours, his land, he should have a right to do what he wants, no different than the guys spraying around your yard, their land. Who cares if it isn't financially viable and he loses his shirt, what business is it of yours? You won't hear me saying a guy shouldn't quit his job at a lumber store and become a contractor just because he is handy. Hope you aren't complaining about the business down the road from you that sells tractors, with all the increased dust and traffic it is bringing down "your" road?  
Your point on it being not suitable due to its agricultural setting is laughable, do you see what the city of Brandon uses for expansion or any other town or city? Niverville is buying 2600 acres of farmland for expansion, glad your 10 acres isn't there, just think of the bears and ducks there!!!  
The proposed idea is for people just like you, who want to leave the city, but still be close enough to it, just not stay as long as you. Crazy eh?

Both sides have very valid reasons and justifications. Bsuds raised good points. So let the free market take care of this idea. If you are correct in your concerns then this other party will end up spending some money and then never seeing any roi. This conversation is over. Please stop adding to this thread.

you get to determine when we can stop discussing a topic??

I wonder how many of the private campgrounds(there is lots) located in towns and surrounding rural agricultural areas located in Manitoba that provide service's to campers that would be closed down based on your concerns. Each one of them had to establish plans and apply to municipalities and go through the same thing, many of these well established grounds have the exact same problems that you have addressed and have still managed to be successful and overcome the problems with sound operating practices, let the market decide, it could be a good for the owners and the municipality in increased tax revenue if successful.

Wonder why there is nothing good here, this is the main reason. Brandon has a real lack of campgrounds. And I think the plan to have this campground a more primitive one will be nice. There are many people who want to camp with minimal resources. Most of these people bring their own power with solar, bring water.  
 
The opposition to this is nothing but a NIMBY creating excuses because they don't want it near them.

Farmland will not decrease in value with a campground beside it. Farmland is priced on quite a different bases. You shouldn’t worry about that.

Due to safety hazards and fire risks, land in close proximity to a camp ground such as this will become an insurance liability for a producer therefore decreasing its usefulness and value.  
Personally I wouldn’t be interested in farming, buying or renting next to a development of this kind. It’s just not worth the risk and hassle.  
 
Edited by Farmergeorge, 2023-04-08 21:28:37