Proposed changes to small game regs.

For those who are interested:

https://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-Ex...tusId=MTk4NjY5

http://apps.mnr.gov.on.ca/public/fil...egulations.pdf

Thanks for sharing, I'm sure many folks here will benefit from the info!

A thread was started on this EBR: https://www.oodmag.com/community/showthread.php?88822-Reminder-EBR-012-9170

Looks like it just makes the regs fairly uniform as far as season start dates etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

A thread was started on this EBR: https://www.oodmag.com/community/showthread.php?88822-Reminder-EBR-012-9170

---

Yeah, I went looking for it before I posted. I looked in the Small Game and Hunting 101 forums. Never thought to look in Firearms and Ammo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebulldog

Looks like it just makes the regs fairly uniform as far as season start dates etc.

---

There are actually quite a few proposed changes regarding season duration and bag limits, particularly rabbits in the north, pheasant and grouse in the south, and other things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smallgamer

Yeah, I went looking for it before I posted. I looked in the Small Game and Hunting 101 forums. Never thought to look in Firearms and Ammo.

---

I did the same thing, knowing I had read comments on it...found it thru the search function :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smallgamer

There are actually quite a few proposed changes regarding season duration and bag limits, particularly rabbits in the north, pheasant and grouse in the south, and other things.

---

For rabbits it seems like it reduces the daily by one, but expands the possession by 5. In the South it reduces the daily, but possession limit is still the expanded number.

For Grouse it seems like they've reduced the daily, and possession limit, in the South only. This looks like it's mainly due to added hunting pressure down here.

My cottage and hunting areas fall in the Southern district, but I don't think I necessarily mind these changes.

Looks like the MNR is making the change mainly to make it easier to determine where you are, and what the regs are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lakon

Thanks for sharing, I'm sure many folks here will benefit from the info!

---

You're welcome Lakon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebulldog

For rabbits it seems like it reduces the daily by one, but expands the possession by 5. In the South it reduces the daily, but possession limit is still the expanded number.

For Grouse it seems like they've reduced the daily, and possession limit, in the South only. This looks like it's mainly due to added hunting pressure down here.

My cottage and hunting areas fall in the Southern district, but I don't think I necessarily mind these changes.

Looks like the MNR is making the change mainly to make it easier to determine where you are, and what the regs are.

---

For what it's worth, these are my thoughts submitted to the EBR. I shared them with the OFAH Zone J small game committee chair and received a very favourable response:

After reviewing EBR 012-9170, I find that while certain aspects of the proposal are of value or benign, and some I have no expertise with which to form an opinion, I do have a few concerns that I would like to share.

First, the proposed geographical boundaries for each management zone are far too broad. I challenge the notion put forth that these zones encompass “large, ecologically similar areas”. For example, the landscape in Essex County resembles the landscape in Simcoe County as much as the moon resembles the earth. To attempt to manage many of our small game species with the same broad brush across this vast and varying landscape reeks of oversimplification for no good purpose.

Second, the increased daily bag limit for pheasants makes no sense at all. In my general area the pheasant hunting opportunities (outside of put and take commercial enterprises) are pretty much limited to those provided by the Elgin Stewardship Council at the Fingal PWA, the Friends of Hullet at the Hullet PWA, and those birds raised and released by the members of the Gosfield North Sportsmen’s Club in Essex County. These hard working folks raise and/or release a limited number of birds each season. By permitting higher daily bag limits the number of hunters having an opportunity to encounter these birds will be reduced, thus undermining the efforts and rationale (increased pheasant hunting opportunities) of the programs administered by these groups. If faced with these realities, I can imagine stocking efforts being suspended.

Third, limits pertaining to Ruffed Grouse. This is an example of the broad brush being applied inappropriately. At the present time, it might be reasonable to apply such a restrictive bag limit to the areas that lay along and south of the Highway 401 corridor. But anecdotal evidence suggest to me that healthier populations exist in the areas covered by Bruce County in the west, and continuing east to Durham County. To reduce the bag limits in this vast stretch of the province is simply to reduce hunter opportunities and thus likely reduce participation. A focus on habitat rehabilitation rather than reduced opportunities seems more appropriate to me.

Fourth, rabbits. It is my opinion that none of the proposed reductions of bag limits and shortening of seasons, for all of the species considered, will serve to benefit them ecologically and will simply reduce hunting opportunities.

Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts on these proposed changes, and for taking the time to read and consider them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smallgamer

You're welcome Lakon.



For what it's worth, these are my thoughts submitted to the EBR. I shared them with the OFAH Zone J small game committee chair and received a very favourable response:

After reviewing EBR 012-9170, I find that while certain aspects of the proposal are of value or benign, and some I have no expertise with which to form an opinion, I do have a few concerns that I would like to share.

First, the proposed geographical boundaries for each management zone are far too broad. I challenge the notion put forth that these zones encompass “large, ecologically similar areas”. For example, the landscape in Essex County resembles the landscape in Simcoe County as much as the moon resembles the earth. To attempt to manage many of our small game species with the same broad brush across this vast and varying landscape reeks of oversimplification for no good purpose.

Second, the increased daily bag limit for pheasants makes no sense at all. In my general area the pheasant hunting opportunities (outside of put and take commercial enterprises) are pretty much limited to those provided by the Elgin Stewardship Council at the Fingal PWA, the Friends of Hullet at the Hullet PWA, and those birds raised and released by the members of the Gosfield North Sportsmen’s Club in Essex County. These hard working folks raise and/or release a limited number of birds each season. By permitting higher daily bag limits the number of hunters having an opportunity to encounter these birds will be reduced, thus undermining the efforts and rationale (increased pheasant hunting opportunities) of the programs administered by these groups. If faced with these realities, I can imagine stocking efforts being suspended.

Third, limits pertaining to Ruffed Grouse. This is an example of the broad brush being applied inappropriately. At the present time, it might be reasonable to apply such a restrictive bag limit to the areas that lay along and south of the Highway 401 corridor. But anecdotal evidence suggest to me that healthier populations exist in the areas covered by Bruce County in the west, and continuing east to Durham County. To reduce the bag limits in this vast stretch of the province is simply to reduce hunter opportunities and thus likely reduce participation. A focus on habitat rehabilitation rather than reduced opportunities seems more appropriate to me.

Fourth, rabbits. It is my opinion that none of the proposed reductions of bag limits and shortening of seasons, for all of the species considered, will serve to benefit them ecologically and will simply reduce hunting opportunities.

Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts on these proposed changes, and for taking the time to read and consider them.

---

Interesting take on things. I on the whole, tend to agree. However I can't speak with any amount of experience about SW ON where you are.