Printable View
You're right on, sir!Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
I just received a painful, slightly panicked, apologetic second call from the same CO...
It's an utter mess, but he confirmed the truth -- that the recommendations WERE enacted. It may be ridiculous, but it's real.
GAH!!!
Delete my previous post-- I'd hate to add to the confusion!
I see nothing has changed at the Misfits of Natural Resources. How can these bozo's continually get it wrong. They need 2 years of lead time to change deer guidelines but they can change rabbit seasons in an instant. WTF! and midseason no less, and of course by word of mouth!
Yup...It's a complete s--t show.Quote:
Originally Posted by SK33T3R
The CO I spoke to first said the reported change was BS, and if I could please help set the record straight with all of the social media "misinformation".
Then he called back 30 minutes later even more frustrated to apologize and correct himself... these folks have been clearly left to flounder at the front line, (uninformed), while the "science-based" regs have suddenly changed overnight...seemingly arbitrarily in the back rooms.
To be clear, I certainly don't blame the CO's ... they seem as baffled as I was/am.
When I asked what he would do if (between now and June 15th) he came across hunters with a load of harvested varying hares... he said- (paraphrased) -he'd inform them of the new regs, and to stop hunting and enjoy the bunnies they've got...as no court would reasonably convict them because of this ridiculous mess.
Even for a bunch of Liberals,I find this cluster f**k quite astounding. What could possibly be the rationale with the timing behind this instead of changing the regs and enacting them for the 2018 season like any other sensible program? Honestly,those guys could screw up The Lord's Prayer...if they knew it.
It does make some reasonable sense to have all small game close on roughly the same day
Bonkers,your an apprentice ,so I forgive you.
Ontario is much to large to paint all small game regs with the same brush.States are much much smaller and feel the need to manage "zones", with varying rules.Duck season in the north has always opened earlier than southern WMU's BECAUSE the migration starts earlier,and they are gone earlier due obviously to the latitudes.When those regs were instituted they made sense,thier was common sense behind them.However,Woodcock season in the northern zones as well as Ducks are open to the same dates as in Southern Ont,and I'm hearing this makes sense to some people.My dad shoots woodcock in Essex at the same time of year I'm shoveling snow.But the season is still open,I guess for those harder to hunt "frozen" woodcock.
That is just one example.
Now the limit on Pheasant in Timmins is 10 a day.No one has seen a pheasant in Timmins EVER.And this is part of the "new" simplified regs. Trying to simplify in principle to make things easier for the participants makes sense.I don't see that being the case.From a management perspective,it looks like
1.They are taking the lazy way out. (price every item on the shelf the same so i don't have to be bothered)
2.Hide your true agenda (best place to hide socks is in a drawer full of socks)
I think we are seeing a combination of sorts here.
The only godforsaken reason rabbit season would close in the North April 1 is for the SAME reason it was closed June 15 before. (everything did in the north and reopened Sept 1) To keep guns out of the bush longer.In 27 years of hunting rabbits in early spring I have NEVER come across another hunter, nor read that restrictions were in the works due to loss of habitat/populations.I have no issue (though not scientifically backed) putting a limit of 6 (was no limit before)
I challenge anyone to come up with a logical explanation that is NOT political and is based on fact.
Is it possible they did it to limit the potential for hares being killed that have dependent young? Generally this is not a bad conservation approach to build populations. However, I doubt there is enough impact from late spring hare hunting to have any effect on the overall population, so I highly doubt we will see an increase in hare numbers because of it (though I hope I'm wrong!). Short of an argument about population, there would be an argument about not letting young dependent hares starve. This can also be a good humane policy. Don't forget the argument around orphaned cubs was enough to get the spring bear hunt cancelled the first time, even though the number of orphaned cubs was seriously misrepresented and over-stated. Also young dependent hares already have a very high natural mortality so in the big picture, hunting is not even a drop in the bucket.... so there is no reason this change couldn't have been rolled out for next year rather than stopping it immediately mid season. But who knows, Suzuki just successfully got turtle trapping cancelled, even though trapping might have only accounted for a dozen or so snapping turtle deaths a year.... while thousands get run over on the roadways. I'm totally making this up, but maybe the MNR got wind that the "spring hare hunt" was next in his sights.
The turtle thing happened because the MNR got thousands of responses to the EBR posting asking for a ban on taking snapping turtles.
True - though largely orchestrated by the David Suzuki Foundation who campaigned for it and who provided a form letter email response. The foundation often likes to promote ideology under the guise of science. I'm not against ideology or science, just against misrepresenting one to promote the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
The David Suzuki Foundation's position on this is well supported by the science. Snapping turtles are a species at risk and their life history makes them vulnerable to hunting pressure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Larson
Hunters used to be conservationists, but in recent years, the hunting community has largely forgotten what that means.