Slap in the face from the mnrf

I'm sure they do Efouge, but as noted above theres at least one, who would rather look for ways "to live with them" (aka hands off) and alter their behavioural patterns (which in itself is somewhat concerning, should we really be trying to alter any animals natural behaviours and instincts) versus solely using time tested and true techniques. That does not mean said person is an "anti", but rather would prefer more hands off, versus traditional means of controlling their numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

I might suggest Sawbill, that the constant pressure to deal with the ever growing problem up North was only 40-50% of it. The other 50% was that they had finally ranged far enough South that they were a nuisance in cottage country to (or becoming one) and they were starting show up with some regularity in bed room communities. It was now "politically safe".

Even today, the same thinking is what has Ms Wynne shooting down Mayor Tory's screams for tolls on the Gardner and DVP.
The 416 is still solidly liberal, the 905 is turning against and they will probably lose a lot of seats there. Its politically safe, to disappoint Tory and the 416, in order to gain favour with the 905.

It has jack squat to do with whats right, wrong, fair, whatever......and everything to do with political expediency.

---

JBen, you seem to have some insight on how the mnrf and their biologists operate. Maybe you can explain their rationale and reasoning for reducing snowshoe hare harvesting and season cuts in wmu's 1 thru 60 ?

Lol I would look for Sawbill's thought on that. Being from the north he'd have some kind of idea in their numbers and having some familiarity with the MNR hoe they work as well.

Me, I follow politics and I am very cynical of politicians. If policticians decide to do A, and give a reason that sounds plausible, I will question everything, from all angles and it's only when I cant see a political angle/reason will I begin to think there isnt one.

Don't know enough about Snowshoes up there to really guess at why the MNR would make a fairly large change like that, nor are they some kind of issue that would suggest politics.

tell me about it .... def a time that hunters should unite as one

I'm an enthusiastic, small game hunter from the Thunder Bay / WMU 13 area.

I had buzzed the local MNR office (and left a message) as soon as I had heard about this ...on social media. (Which isn't how one expects to hear about hunting regulation changes.) I had my doubts, as it seemed like a foolish and ridiculously abrupt way to implement new regs. ...Especially ones having an immensely questionable rationale in an area with no apparent shortage of snowshoe hares.

He (the C.O.) got back to me promptly on Monday morning, assured me that (paraphrased) - it was clearly a misrepresentation of a recommendation, not an actual enacted regulation change. ...to change the regs so quickly and abruptly would be utterly ridiculous. He assured me that I was good to hunt snowshoes until June 15th, as noted in the printed regulations.
He also asked if I could spread the word on that (on whichever forms of social media I used) –using his name, as he wouldn't want people to be misled by such BS.

So I did. Of course!
Immediately and cheerfully.

Well, (damn) ...he calls back 30 minutes later to take it all back– the recommended changes were in fact enacted across the board, effective April 1st.
He was a little shocked, *quite* apologetic, and obviously pissed off... —I don't think he could believe the irrational stupidity of the situation.

I asked him what he would do if he came across hare hunters (with harvested hares) within the next few weeks, and he replied with a snort- (again/paraphrased):

"There's no way I'd charge them, even if I wanted to...it'd be laughed out of the courtroom-- no doubt in my mind. They'd have a hardcopy of the up-to-date regs against word of mouth and electronic media postings. ...I'd just inform them of the new season and limits, tell them to stop their hunt, and to enjoy the bunnies they had."

I could sense him shaking his head throughout the conversation. He was baffled. And I felt bad for him, –being unprepared & clearly uninformed by his "superiors", while on the frontline of contact, representing regulations that he knew from his own literal observational experience that were total nonsense from a practical perspective.

Anyway- Concerning the hares, I haven't heard any official rationale/reason for the change other than "streamlining".

Unfortunately, "streamlining" isn't a "science-based" reason. It is however, a method of making things simpler for people who ride desks and rubberstamp things for a living.

(As others have mentioned- ...It *may* be part of a larger plan to reduce the number/keep firearms out of the bush for a longer period of time during the warmer months.) (?)

In all sincerity- If there's a scientific rationale behind the changes in my WMU, I haven't heard it from any official sources yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayardia

(As others have mentioned- ...It may also be part of a larger plan to reduce the number/keep firearms out of the bush for a longer period of time during the warmer months.)

---

This one is just silly. Everything somehow comes back to guns.

There was IIRC some rationale included in the Dec. 14 EBR posting, but this seems to be gone now that the regs are enacted. The obvious way to get the rationale is to contact MNR. OFAH also may be able to help.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

Agreed... but I'm left grasping at straws.

I'll certainly keep asking around.

It seems as if the mnr is starting to operate kind of like food companies,where animal welfare activist are becoming management in these corporations right under our noses and it's starting to have an effect...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Nothing in the law gives the province a veto, but that doesn't mean the feds can force a season on a province where the province doesn't want it. There are agreements between the feds and the provinces outside the law itself. If the feds wanted to force some migratory birds issue against the wishes of a provincial F&G dept, the F&G dept's first answer can be, "Enforce your own regulations," which the feds don't have the resources to do. Somewhere in the byzantine depths of the federal budget, money is transferred to Ontario to enforce the regs for the feds, and this is why the province has a say.

Key point being here, there is really no reason to believe that the MNR is full of antis and is steadily taking away hunting opportunities for that reason. That idea doesn't survive an encounter with the facts.

---

Obviously there is a working relationship there but I don't think the provinces have as much say to what the federal government enacts. Police and CO's are to enforce the laws and regulations of the land, both federal,provincial and municipal whether one level of government agrees with a certain law or not.

With that said, I agree, there isn't a reason to think the MNRF is stacking the ministry with anti hunters. However, bungling this roll-out doesn't exactly help their reputation.

Honestly, I imagine the actual "enemy" is over generalization and *bureaucratic disconnect*... to which- (GAH!) -I'm quite accustomed to in my field.

Metaphorically speaking- using a broad brush, when a fine one is required, ...and misunderstanding "the map" for "the territory".

Hopefully there'll be more to come this. ---Either a good and solid explanation...and/or an appropriate fine tuning of the regs.