Wow this could cost us

just read this on another site checking out rainbow trout run and came across this

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) has a broad mandate that includes the sustainable management of fish and wildlife. This diverse program includes resource management activities such as enforcement, resource monitoring, policy and program development, resource allocation, licensing, research, and fish stocking.
Ontarian’s benefit from healthy fish and wildlife resources through recreation, employment, tourism and spin-off benefits to the biodiversity of Ontario’s ecosystems. Ontario has 1.32 million licenced anglers and over 400,000 hunters. The 2010 Survey of Recreational Fishing in Canada estimates the value of Ontario's recreational fisheries at $2.5 billion and hunting is estimated to contribute another $1.8 billion. Together, recreational fishing and hunting provide more than $4 billion to the Ontario economy. In addition, commercial fishing harvests of approximately $35 – 40 million in fish annually create additional economic value through the processing and retail sale of resultant food products. However, trends in fishing and hunting participation, demographics and the economy are impacting the funding available for MNR’s fish and wildlife program and Ontario's resource-based tourism industry which includes approximately 1,575 licensed tourist operators generating hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues annually, and account for a significant portion of tourism revenue for Northern Ontario.
MNR’s Fish and Wildlife program is supported by the consolidated revenue fund (CRF) which includes general provincial taxes and a Special Purpose Account (SPA). In 1995, the SPA was established through the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (FWCA) ensuring revenues from licence sales, permits, royalties, fines and fees be used exclusively to fund MNR’s fish and wildlife program. The rules for managing this fund are governed by the Province’s Special Purpose Account Policy (2003).
This program costs approximately $100M annually to deliver programs and services across Ontario, with 67% of funding from the SPA and 33% from CRF. Trends in licence sales and participation in fishing and hunting have changed since the 1995 establishment of the Fish and Wildlife SPA. For example, the number of licenced anglers has declined over the past 15 years from 1.61M in 1995 to 1.26M in 2010 (Source: Department of Fisheries and Oceans). Based on the demographic profile of current licensees and declines in angling participation, MNR will need to reduce fish and wildlife program expenditures starting in 2015 in order to maintain a positive SPA balance. In a recent Consumer Research Survey (Harris/Decima 2013), clients and the public were asked about their preferences for trade-offs given this forecast, and 95% of respondents favoured alternatives to increase funding and sustain the program through various new revenue initiatives over program and service delivery reductions. Only 5% of respondents supported the reduction of the fish and wildlife management program.
Jurisdictions in the US and Canadian western provinces have demonstrated that new, innovative strategies to address fish and wildlife program funding sustainability can be successful by using a blend of initiatives such as new licence offerings to better meet client needs, broadening the client base beyond traditional users, increased transparency and public reporting to show how licence dollars are spent, cost efficiencies, diversification of revenue streams, improved client services to respond to emerging needs, and targeted marketing.
The draft Sustainability Strategy for the Fish and Wildlife Special Purpose Account, 2014-2019 proposes to stabilize and moderately increase revenues to the Fish and Wildlife SPA through a variety of goals, strategies and tactics including strategic review of licences, diversifying revenue streams, marketing and promotion, cost efficiencies, and transparent reporting. Should the strategy be approved, some regulatory change proposals may follow.
The Strategy proposes three goals to sustain fish and wildlife programming well into the future:
1. Increase Fish and Wildlife SPA revenue by enhancing relationships with existing clients, increasing participation, and diversifying revenues
2. Apply Fair Cost Recovery and Value by ensuring licence fees and royalty rates are transparent and based on costs, benefits and a fair rate of return to the Province for the use of the resource
3. Enhance Efficiency by improving program efficiency and finding opportunities for savings thereby allowing more fiscal resources to be directed to fish and wildlife conservation.
The proposed strategies and tactics focus on:
• Enhancing relationships with clients
• Increasing involvement by attracting new participants
• Diversifying revenues
• Improving cost recovery
• Modernizing fees and royalties
• Collaborating with partners to achieve shared goals
To comment on this ebr go to this link... This may cost us higher for fishing and hunting
http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-Ext...Uy&language=en

I don't think there is any doubt we sportspersons, will be hit with increases to licence fees etc..

I agree that it will soon cost us more. I guess buying a 3 year card wasn't such a bad idea after all.

They could easily triple the cost of the Outdoor Card and it would still be a great deal for the privilege to hunt and fish in this province. One of the cheapest 'cost' we incur to enjoy life.

....I had a Cream Egg McFlurry at Mc's yesterday and it cost more the Outdoors card for a yr. :scream:

This comment could come back to bite me in the arse (I just turned 65),but,with the increasing number of seniors in this province who are no longer required to buy fishing licenses,it might be time to re-visit that policy. The number must easily be into the tens of thousands.OK,let the arse kickin' begin.LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

This comment could come back to bite me in the arse (I just turned 65),but,with the increasing number of seniors in this province who are no longer required to buy fishing licenses,it might be time to re-visit that policy. The number must easily be into the tens of thousands.OK,let the arse kickin' begin.LOL

---

My dad is one of them.

Let's not ignore however that every province ( except QC) also allows seniors a free pass for fishing. Seniors are predominantly a very strong voting force ( they represent one of the single greatest demographics that actually goes to the polls).

Somehow I think politicians will not take that one on.

We still enjoy relatively cheap license fees across the board.

[QUOTE=MikePal;785279]They could easily triple the cost of the Outdoor Card and it would still be a great deal for the privilege to hunt and fish in this province. One of the cheapest 'cost' we incur to enjoy life.

As a tax payer and land owner as you are, I don't see where you come up with the idea that it's a privilege to hunt and fish in this province. I have bought a fishing licence, hunting licence, dog licence's, which by the way is a rip off, for well over 40 years. Believe me, I've more than paid my way. It isn't a privilege, it's a right...

I agree 100% with Bo D, the attitude that we should pay and then pay more is out of date. Time for better management of the monies we pay is what is needed. Out with the Liberals, shoot, I forgot, I won't be here to vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woody1948

I agree 100% with Bo D, the attitude that we should pay and then pay more is out of date. Time for better management of the monies we pay is what is needed. Out with the Liberals, shoot, I forgot, I won't be here to vote.

---

You mean you won't be up at Badd to search for a deer ??

I see the argument of both sides......

If you compare hunting/fishing to other hobbies, like going to the movies for example it is a bargain. 10 bucks at the theatre gets you 2 hours of entertainment, a small game tag can provide months of entertainment.

On the other hand, we should have the right to provide food for ourselves....but if everyone thought that way would there be any hunting opportunities left?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woody1948

I agree 100% with Bo D, the attitude that we should pay and then pay more is out of date. Time for better management of the monies we pay is what is needed. Out with the Liberals, shoot, I forgot, I won't be here to vote.

---

Wholeheartedly agree that we should see better management of the money we do pay.

However, if we lost 250,000 licensed anglers over a period of time, which the numbers indicate we did. At roughly $32.20 per year for sportfishing, and outdoors card. That adds up to $8,050,000.00 less in monies collected, every year. That shortfall is going to be felt regardless.

It is a head in sand approach to think that it may not come to pass that we will not see an increase in license fees.

Bo D. Regardless of your paying into it, the very notion that it's a right over a privilege, is perhaps a bit much. If you've been paying into it for 40 years, I'm going to assume you're almost at the magic (free) age anyhow....and I hope it's still free when I get there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bo D

As a tax payer and land owner as you are, I don't see where you come up with the idea that it's a privilege to hunt and fish in this province. I have bought a fishing licence, hunting licence, dog licence's, which by the way is a rip off, for well over 40 years. Believe me, I've more than paid my way. It isn't a privilege, it's a right...

---

I guess you didn't bother to read the article; The wildlife in this province is a resourse.....we need to manage that resource....it cost $100 million to do that. It raises that money thru the sales of licenses ect.....got the picture so far ?

The fact that the government has set up a system that provides wildlife management which allows us to hunt/fish is a privilege....like driving on a hwy...it's not a right to drive a car, it's a privilege.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mox72

I see the argument of both sides......

If you compare hunting/fishing to other hobbies, like going to the movies for example it is a bargain. 10 bucks at the theatre gets you 2 hours of entertainment, a small game tag can provide months of entertainment.

On the other hand, we should have the right to provide food for ourselves....but if everyone thought that way would there be any hunting opportunities left?

---

Unless there's members on this board who are First nations...there's very few of us who would starve without our outdoor pursuits....Is it cheaper to have moose, or deer in the freezer? Maybe, but by the time I tally up what I spent on hunting last year.....well.....I'd be eating pretty well if I just bought meat with it.

It's still a privilege since we only use the land owned by the monarchy! And the queen has a right to our dollars!:(

[QUOTE=Bo D;785312]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

They could easily triple the cost of the Outdoor Card and it would still be a great deal for the privilege to hunt and fish in this province. One of the cheapest 'cost' we incur to enjoy life.

As a tax payer and land owner as you are, I don't see where you come up with the idea that it's a privilege to hunt and fish in this province. I have bought a fishing licence, hunting licence, dog licence's, which by the way is a rip off, for well over 40 years. Believe me, I've more than paid my way. It isn't a privilege, it's a right...

---

I hate to pop your bubble,but,everything we do or everything we think we have a right to is ,in Canada,a privilege controlled by the Crown,from hunting and fishing to driving to private property. These can virtually disappear with the stroke of a vice-regal pen,if,under law,deemed necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mox72

I see the argument of both sides......

If you compare hunting/fishing to other hobbies, like going to the movies for example it is a bargain. 10 bucks at the theatre gets you 2 hours of entertainment, a small game tag can provide months of entertainment.

On the other hand, we should have the right to provide food for ourselves....but if everyone thought that way would there be any hunting opportunities left?

---

Before 1920,there were literally,no game and fish laws. People hunted and fished for subsistence. As the population grew,game animal numbers went into a nose-dive until the idea of sustainability came along in the form of licensing and seasons. With today's population explosion and the abject poverty a huge number of people find themselves in,your assertion that there wouldn't be anything left is absolutely correct.

[QUOTE=trimmer21;785329]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bo D

I hate to pop your bubble,but,everything we do or everything we think we have a right to is ,in Canada,a privilege controlled by the Crown,from hunting and fishing to driving to private property. These can virtually disappear with the stroke of a vice-regal pen,if,under law,deemed necessary.



Before 1920,there were literally,no game and fish laws. People hunted and fished for subsistence. As the population grew,game animal numbers went into a nose-dive until the idea of sustainability came along in the form of licensing and seasons. With today's population explosion and the abject poverty a huge number of people find themselves in,your assertion that there wouldn't be anything left is absolutely correct.

---

Let's not forget the fact that waterfowl populations were almost decimated due to market hunting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

I guess you didn't bother to read the article; The wildlife in this province is a resourse.....we need to manage that resource....it cost $100 million to do that. It raises that money thru the sales of licenses ect.....got the picture so far ?

The fact that the government has set up a system that provides wildlife management which allows us to hunt/fish is a privilege....like driving on a hwy...it's not a right to drive a car, it's a privilege.

---

Privilege my , and yes I read the article. Who is paying for this so called management, we are John Q public, no not John Q public but the sportsmen of Ontario. How much money has been siphoned off of fishing and hunting licenses to go elsewhere by this government that was to go back into the resource. What have they done to improve this so called privilege except raise the cost of licenses every year. I don't see them putting in food plots or helping the deer herds this past winter. Yeah, it's a privilege alright. What about road tax, gas tax, vehicle tax when we purchase a truck or automobile, and every other tax that has to do with driving a car, yeah, it's a privilege alright...It's a right, a right that we are paying for to sustain our wildlife as well as our roads...

So I'm figuring your one the 5%:

Quote:

---

clients and the public were asked about their preferences for trade-offs given this forecast, and 95% of respondents favoured alternatives to increase funding and sustain the program through various new revenue initiatives over program and service delivery reductions. Only 5% of respondents supported the reduction of the fish and wildlife management program.

---

Love the rant....I was picturing you walking with a camera in your face thru a back alley with graffiti all over the walls..:)

I'm pretty sure the term is "revoke your privileges", not your rights.

Honestly more then once on this forum I've tried to draw attention to the spa account and how our dollars are spent and who you needed to contact to try and get changes made and it seems to fall on deaf ears , honestly most outdoors people only have time for politics once someone is trying to take something from them

I look at it this way, it is a priviledge because it can be taken from me if I do something wrong. Secondly the amount of money I spend in licensing is miniscule to the amount I spend on gear, or even going out to eat while hunting. I refuse to get caught up in the government mismanagement because they do that everywhere, why would it be any different for hunting licenses. This country is still a far better place to live than most anywhere else in the world if you are an outdoors person, sooo much land so few people. I will continue enjoying hunting and I am sure my daughter will to. We have to OFAH to continue to support our hunting heritage here in Canada, for me hunting is a stress relief not a source.

I think by some of the responses here, some guys are woefully ignorant ( or ill informed) as to what the MNR does in regards to where the SPA funds go.

Take some time to read thru the report at link and see some of what is done with the funds from the SPA and what is expected from the them. They do a whole lot more than worry about feeding deer in the winter...(which is a no-no according to the MNR).

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodcons...rod_109163.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

I think by some of the responses here, some guys are woefully ignorant ( or ill informed) as to what the MNR does in regards to where the SPA funds go.

Take some time to read thru the report at link and see some of what is done with the funds from the SPA and what is expected from the them. They do a whole lot more than worry about feeding deer in the winter...(which is a no-no by the way).


http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodcons...rod_109163.pdf

---

That's a whole new thread, "How many deer have been killed by feeding them bagged corn?":)

With the amount of baby boomers that pay for fishing licenses today,who are about to cross over into the free zone, there will be a drastic change in income from fishing licenses. They need to make some changes. the money has to come from somewhere.

Yup the more money we put in , the more pencil pushing bureaucrats will be hired . I still recall many years ago when the card came out . They told us then more CO's would be hired for enforcement etc .Never happened . Most went along for the ride including yours truly . It took them till just recently for the verification strip on the back of the card to actually work and now we have to carry more paperwork . Yeah they know how to save money and streamline things alright . That clown show couldn't organize a gang bang in an outhouse if they tried . They know how to rape us blind though and I guess this is called foreplay .

Anyone for this has not spent much time in other provinces hunting or fishing where the resource is in great shape compared to here . This province sucks compared to others for fishing and hunting . WHY ? And yes HUNTING and FISHING is a right . It's written into the Heritage Act as one .

TD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 400bigbear

And yes HUNTING and FISHING is a right . It's written into the Heritage Act as one .

---

Source please?

Heritage Act Ontario spells out the preservation of culture, mainly through building environment, and culturally significant areas, and items.

Heritage Conservation Act of Canada spells out things much the same way.

Rights afforded Canadians are what is spelled out Under the Charter. If you stand in front of a Judge you can have your hunting and fishing privileges revoked....a court does not have the power to revoke anyone's rights guaranteed under the Charter, period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebulldog

Source please?

---

BigBear is right...it is in the act;

Quote:

---

Preamble

Recreational hunting and fishing have played important roles in shaping Ontario’s social, cultural and economic heritage. Recreational hunters and anglers have made important contributions to the understanding, conservation, restoration and management of Ontario’s fish and wildlife resources. The best traditions of recreational hunting and fishing should be valued by future generations.
Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:
Right to hunt and fish
1. (1) A person has a right to hunt and fish in accordance with the law. 2002, c. 10, s. 1 (1).
Same
(2) The reference to the law in subsection (1) includes the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, the Fisheries Act (Canada), the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (Canada) and the regulations made under those Acts. 2002, c. 10, s. 1 (2).


http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/sta...es_02h10_e.htm

---

However in accordance with the MNR and the regulations governing Hunting and Fishing in the Province:

Quote:

---

Your Outdoors Card, licence tag or e-licence

and any applicable licence must be current for you to have a
particular hunting or fishing privilege.

Your Outdoors Card is not transferable to another
person – it provides privileges to you alone

Hunting version Outdoors Card holders may qualify for
instant small game hunting and fishing privileges.

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodcons...ent/239844.pdf

---

So you have the right to be able to hunt...but to do so is a privilege :)

Thankyou Mike Pal . I knew it was because our local MP was instrumental in seeing it pass but it's a long read to find as it relates to us a hunters,trappers and fishermen . And yes to some degree a privilege because of licensing etc provincially .

Thanks again for taking the time for looking it up Mike . I knew somebody would want it substantiated but knew it was there , somewhere .;):thumbup: I should save it for reference , :D

TD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebulldog

HRights afforded Canadians are what is spelled out Under the Charter.

---

Well, Canadians do enjoy other rights that are not specifically spelled out in the Charter, and the courts recognize that. In fact the Charter says flat out (in s. 26) that just because a right ain't in the charter doesn't mean it ain't a right.

However, there is no "right" to hunt and fish. That right does not exist in English common law, and fish and game laws in Canada have been around for a long time (longer, perhaps, than Canada itself). We've had hunting licences in some provinces for about a century. So there's no basis to say that we enjoy an individual right to hunt or fish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

BigBear is right...it is in the act;



However in accordance with the MNR and the regulations governing Hunting and Fishing in the Province:



So you have the right to be able to hunt...but to do so is a privilege :)

---

Thanks Mike.

400BB. For what it's worth, you referenced the Heritage Act, which I deal with pretty extensively, not the "Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act". Which up until Mike posted, I had absolutely no knowledge of. If you reference hunting and fishing rights..the main thing that gets sourced is referencing 1st Nations.

A "right" to hunt and fish "in accordance with the law" doesn't imply that licensing infringes the right, for the obvious reason that licensing is among the laws you must hunt and fish in accordance with. So all this means is that you can't be prevented from hunting or fishing as long as you're following the law.

That's the same bad logic that sees a right to keep and bear arms arising out of the 1689 English Bill of Rights, which specifically says that such a right is "subject to the law." Bruce Montague argued that C-68 was unconstitutional based on the Bill of Rights and s. 26, but the court pointed to the phrase "subject to the law" and dismissed his argument. So in fact, the idea that licensing could infringe a right that is subject to the law has already been specifically rejected by the courts. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebulldog

Thanks Mike.

400BB. For what it's worth, you referenced the Heritage Act, which I deal with pretty extensively, not the "Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act". Which up until Mike posted, I had absolutely no knowledge of. If you reference hunting and fishing rights..the main thing that gets sourced is referencing 1st Nations.

---

Your right Bluebulldog . Sorry I did not call it exactly right . My mistake . Please forgive me but is it not a part of the Heritage Act and not a stand alone ? I don't know myself nor do I worry enough to read through the whole thing AGAIN at the moment but I'm sure my intent of the mention or reference is not mistaken . I just know something is there in place . I'm not up on it as I once was . I can stand being corrected for those that are anal or feel the need to discredit my basic rebuttal ... , and no I'm not considering your post as being one . I guess were both learning and it's all good .:D:thumbup: But the ACT also covers covers non- aboriginals to a degree . Provinces can over ride it locally by making it provincial but there is the Supreme Court Of Canada whose rule over rides anything as a rule .

As you know Blue this post can and will go sideways if every googler comes out and post cases . over turned or challenged . I don't wish to get wound up just to put a basis on my opinion or others of what I think is right or they do . Be nice to leave something cut and dried for a change . It's the Canadian Heritage Fishing and Hunting Act .

May I step away from this thread now ?

TD:thumbup:

If I'm not mistaken, it is a provincial law. Alberta and BC have similar laws. The federal government passed a bill proclaiming a national hunting, fishing and trapping heritage day, but that bill stopped short of saying anything about rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 400bigbear

Your right Bluebulldog . Sorry I did not call it exactly right . My mistake . Please forgive me but is it not a part of the Heritage Act and not a stand alone ? I don't know myself nor do I worry enough to read through the whole thing AGAIN at the moment but I'm sure my intent of the mention or reference is not mistaken . I just know something is there in place . I'm not up on it as I once was . I can stand being corrected for those that are anal or feel the need to discredit my basic rebuttal ... , and no I'm not considering your post as being one . I guess were both learning and it's all good .:D:thumbup: But the ACT also covers covers non- aboriginals to a degree . Provinces can over ride it locally by making it provincial but there is the Supreme Court Of Canada whose rule over rides anything as a rule .

As you know Blue this post can and will go sideways if every googler comes out and post cases . over turned or challenged . I don't wish to get wound up just to put a basis on my opinion or others of what I think is right or they do . Be nice to leave something cut and dried for a change . It's the Canadian Heritage Fishing and Hunting Act .

May I step away from this thread now ?

TD:thumbup:

---

Of course.

Actually the act was provincial, and was subbed under the Fish and Wildlife Act, it also looks like it's a recent piece of legislation (2002).

As you put it, we're both learning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebulldog

Of course.

Actually the act was provincial, and was subbed under the Fish and Wildlife Act, it also looks like it's a recent piece of legislation (2002).

As you put it, we're both learning.

---

Yes it is not very LONG ago Blue for some of us that were of age to vote at the time when it was enacted . 12 years ago we battled for this so some on here actually have a chance to battle . This battle actually started a long time ago before many . including myself were born or of age to vote . It was guys like Ralph Bice etc that got worried . Oh so many on here think and have faith in MNR , the gov of the day and or biology reports done by students in the PROGRAM that are wishing for jobs in the field .

It's all BS . I would like to see a poll of all SSF students on this site who even got a job that is remotely connected to their chosen field they studied for . They were ,are, our future but not to be . THOUSANDS and thousands went through the wildlife program but have no job related . Thousands and thousands did the enforcement end .. but no jobs . It is criminal and yet for those that had a love and passion were deceived and BSed to go to SSF . Yes now they have to pay back the loans but have no job in their fields . If they can't or decide not to ,, then can we blame them ? Heck the one lad teaching the CO course was a CO but lost his job when cutbacks came in and Mark was a young man . Only choice he had was SSF to work with MNR or step into a factory etc .

Sabre, I already know you may argue against me on this but you have connections but may never be a CO even with those . I wish you the best though lad . You will be a good one .

TD

all is going up but my wadge....
this country is getting to be crazy with goverment ripping the working people off ....

If you really want to make your eyes go crossed, go take a look at what a Super Sportsman Licence buys you in NY state. Bear tags, deer tags, turkey tags (yes tags plural) plus small game and fishing. Around $88.

$100 gets you a non resident big and small game license. Think about that...

Annual Hunting License (View residency qualifications)
With this license you can hunt big game and small game.
***This license is required before other privileges (i.e. bowhunting, muzzleloading & turkey permit) can be purchased.***

Resident Fee	Nonresident Fee
$22 (ages 16-69) $5 (ages 70+) $5 (ages 12-15)	$100 (ages 16+) $5 (ages 12-15)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 400bigbear

Yes it is not very LONG ago Blue for some of us that were of age to vote at the time when it was enacted . 12 years ago we battled for this so some on here actually have a chance to battle . This battle actually started a long time ago before many . including myself were born or of age to vote . It was guys like Ralph Bice etc that got worried . Oh so many on here think and have faith in MNR , the gov of the day and or biology reports done by students in the PROGRAM that are wishing for jobs in the field .

It's all BS . I would like to see a poll of all SSF students on this site who even got a job that is remotely connected to their chosen field they studied for . They were ,are, our future but not to be . THOUSANDS and thousands went through the wildlife program but have no job related . Thousands and thousands did the enforcement end .. but no jobs . It is criminal and yet for those that had a love and passion were deceived and BSed to go to SSF . Yes now they have to pay back the loans but have no job in their fields . If they can't or decide not to ,, then can we blame them ? Heck the one lad teaching the CO course was a CO but lost his job when cutbacks came in and Mark was a young man . Only choice he had was SSF to work with MNR or step into a factory etc .

Sabre, I already know you may argue against me on this but you have connections but may never be a CO even with those . I wish you the best though lad . You will be a good one .

TD

---

I got duped at flemming as well . I bailed after the first semester as did 3 of my buddies that wanted to live the dream,we were discouraged as returning graduates could not find work in forestry,fish and wildlife,aquaculture or enforcement.They came back for cartography,pest control ect.
3 other buddies finished and only 1 is working in the field he studied for and that's because he switched to pest control during the first semester.This was 20 years ago so I dont know if things have changed.
John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 400bigbear

Yes it is not very LONG ago Blue for some of us that were of age to vote at the time when it was enacted . 12 years ago we battled for this so some on here actually have a chance to battle . This battle actually started a long time ago before many . including myself were born or of age to vote . It was guys like Ralph Bice etc that got worried . Oh so many on here think and have faith in MNR , the gov of the day and or biology reports done by students in the PROGRAM that are wishing for jobs in the field .

It's all BS . I would like to see a poll of all SSF students on this site who even got a job that is remotely connected to their chosen field they studied for . They were ,are, our future but not to be . THOUSANDS and thousands went through the wildlife program but have no job related . Thousands and thousands did the enforcement end .. but no jobs . It is criminal and yet for those that had a love and passion were deceived and BSed to go to SSF . Yes now they have to pay back the loans but have no job in their fields . If they can't or decide not to ,, then can we blame them ? Heck the one lad teaching the CO course was a CO but lost his job when cutbacks came in and Mark was a young man . Only choice he had was SSF to work with MNR or step into a factory etc .

Sabre, I already know you may argue against me on this but you have connections but may never be a CO even with those . I wish you the best though lad . You will be a good one .

TD

---

I was there in the mid '90's with dreams of becoming a CO. A few guys and girls that I knew ended up working for the MNR but many did not and others went towards the programs that actually had a good placement rate. Heavy equipment, drilling and blasting, pest control, etc. My old roommate ended up getting a job as a CO but he had some inside connections. We keep in touch. I took Fish and Wildlife but cut out in the third year because I knew that the 3rd year was probably not going to do anything but suck more money out of me. Luckily, the science background came in handy later on, and although the field I'm in now is unrelated, at least college wasn't a total waste.

In the end I was glad that the CO thing never worked out. Who wants to be stuck working when you want to be out hunting? Also, I wouldn't have made a very good one. Laying a fine on someone for making a stupid, silly mistake but knowing that you kind of have to wouldn't sit well with me.

Sorry to go off on a tangent but your post brought me back a few years 400bb.

Hey 400BB. I know Mark and he did not lose his job. He was a C.O. in Thunder Bay and applied for the job at SSFC and left the MNR on his own accord.

Back in high school I was thinking of going to SSF to persue a carrier in the outdoors. A C.O. in my area told me of the things that were coming and got me to think of another career path and this was back in the late eighties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redd foxx

Hey 400BB. I know Mark and he did not lose his job. He was a C.O. in Thunder Bay and applied for the job at SSFC and left the MNR on his own accord.

---

Yes I remember very well when he transferred and why . He used to be the CO here . He saw the writing on the wall . He didn't want to even go to TB at the time . Basically pushed out because of cutbacks . He could have got something else with MNR but seniority rules when cutbacks start and bumping starts .

TD