"Minister Bucks Wildlife Fund Critics"

Follow up to the other thread discussion.

http://www.lfpress.com/2016/10/03/mi...e-fund-critics

"Ontario’s natural resources minister says hunters and anglers are getting their money’s worth for the cash they spend on licences every year.Kathryn McGarry was reacting to criticism that more than $70 million a year going into a special wildlife fund from licence fees isn’t going back into fish and game programs.
The issue was flagged after a group representing 1,400 landowners, hunters and farmers in three Southwestern Ontario counties began asking how the money from the fund was being spent, after
it was denied a request for
$10,000 for a wildlife project in the area.
The group, the Aylmer Stakeholders Committee, started asking questions and — after a four-year quest, resorting to a freedom-of-information request — found out some of the fund that’s supposed to be used for hunting and angling projects had been used for such things as buying and selling a house, and costs for psychologists, dentists and doctors.
The disclosures were contained in expenditures the group — made up of members from Elgin, Oxford and Middlesex counties — obtained for 2011-12.
In a statement emailed to The Free Press, McGarry said the province spends about $100 million a year on fish and wildlife programs, so the licence revenue going into the wildlife fund doesn’t even cover the ministry’s costs.
The wildlife fund was set up in 2005 to channel that licence revenue into wildlife and conservation programs.
McGarry’s email said the fish and wildlife fund can be used to cover the salaries and benefits of Natural Resources Ministry employees who carry out fish and wildlife management: “There are directives and guidelines in place that govern benefits and staff relocation entitlements when required.”
McGarry said the ministry will spend $837,000 in the Aylmer district on fish and wildlife this year, and spent $520,000 last year.
Todd Smith, the Progressive Conservative natural resources critic, said the Liberal government has allowed the issue to smoulder for years by withholding information from hunting and angling groups.
Smith said anglers, hunters and conservationists are being hampered because they don’t get basic information, like wildlife counts.
Smith has filed an official request for information on how the wildlife fund is spent and the government is required to answer by Nov. 22.
He said the spending on housing and professional fees needs an explanation.
“It’s perplexing to find out how money is being spent on these items that don’t have much to do with managing herds of elk or the fish coming out of a river,”
said Smith, an eastern Ontario MPP.
Smith said the government seems desperate for cash because of out-of control spending. He said its treatment of hunter and angler group shows the government’s neglect of rural Ontario.
“They are focused on the GTA. People are tired of policy developed in downtown Toronto,” said Smith, who represents Prince Edward-Hastings.
[email protected]"

Yea, pretty much says the same thing...the 'group' is upset to find out the budget is used to provide Salaries and Benefits. It's always been been public knowledge if they had read the annual budget reports.

Would it make them happy if the MNR told them the staff costs came out of the 33% CRF funds rather than the 77% coming from the SPA funds ? :)

Seems like there is some nonsense going on with that group; them seem ill informed and are still complaining even after the MNR spend $500k in the Aylmer district last last and another $837k this year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Yea, pretty much says the same thing...the 'group' is upset to find out the budget is used to provide Salaries and Benefits. It's always been been public knowledge if they had read the annual budget reports.

Would it make them happy if the MNR told them the staff costs came out of the 33% CRF funds rather than the 77% coming from the SPA funds ? :)

Seems like there is some nonsense going on with that group; them seem ill informed and are still complaining even after the MNR spend $500k in the Aylmer district last last and another $837k this year.

---

I think essentially they're mad they got denied the 10000$ (i'd like to know what exactly they wanted it for) and are now trying to point out where that 10000 could have come from if the ministry did a better job. IE not paying moving expenses for someone, as an example, if the MNR wouldn't have done that, then there'd be money around for their 'more noble' project.

i can't sympathize with them without knowing what they wanted the money for. then i could better judge the appropriateness (or lack there of) of them being denied the funds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrapJack

i can't sympathize with them without knowing what they wanted the money for. then i could better judge the appropriateness (or lack there of) of them being denied the funds.

---

If the cupboard is bear, it's bear, regardless of the value of their project. Over the past 10 yrs or so we've all heard stories of the MNR not having enough money put gas in the CO's trucks so they could out and do their jobs. They run very lean deptartment with their commitments, let alone special interest projects.

To hold staff expenditures up to scrutiny shows they have little concept of the costs of Human Resources. But I'll bet some of them have jobs were they have full medical and dental plans and have their moving costs covered on if they are transferred etc. Why would it surprise them the MNR departments do the same ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

If the cupboard is bear, it's bear, regardless of the value of their project. Over the past 10 yrs or so we've all heard stories of the MNR not having enough money put gas in the CO's trucks so they could out and do their jobs. They run very lean deptartment with their commitments, let alone special interest projects.

To hold staff expenditures up to scrutiny shows they have little concept of the costs of Human Resources. But I'll bet some of them have jobs were they have full medical and dental plans and have their moving costs covered on if they are transferred etc. Why would it surprise them the MNR departments do the same ?

---

Of course that's all true. But certainly no one would argue that any government arm this large couldn't do better. I have no doubt that 10 000$ would be easily found if scrutiny met with their book keeping.
The transparency here is the real issue. It creates distrust, which is a huge problem that the MNR faces when you scan the comments and forums. The perception of misappropriations is a major issue.

My own opinion; I think it was very wise idea to create of the SPA fund concept and use the money as their operation budget.

By doing so it divests the general taxpayer, including the anti's etc, from saying they don't want 'their' tax dollars to fund hunting. The MNR's budget, money used to pay the staff etc, is then self financed by the people who use the services.

The problem is that there is a steady declining revenue stream from a steadily declining population of hunters. So 'budget' money has gotten tight.

It's the lack of transparency that bothers me. I know we're just the schleps that shell out the $$$, but don't you think we deserve a little say in how the money is spent? I'd like to see a minimum % go to wildlife science for instance. I do a herd census on my property each year (trailcam & feeder) and arrange wildlife projects out of my own pocket, yet I have to accept a tag based on guesswork from Kemptville, because they can't afford or elect not to, do some proper surveys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoire1960

I'd like to see a minimum % go to wildlife science for instance.

---

Did you read thru one of the budget reports ? they're pretty good at showing the breakdown of where the money is allocated;

http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/e...lume1/MNRF.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Did you read thru one of the budget reports ? they're pretty good at showing the breakdown of where the money is allocated;

http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/e...lume1/MNRF.pdf

---

Budget doesn't help address how money gets spent, only explains what it was spent on. What I'm looking for is a hard legislated % for well defined items that meet wildlife science criteria. When you have a huge budget like the MNR you can bury all kinds of things under "services" for instance. There are lots of items in the budget I hope our special funds aren't going toward & what's the deal with all the bad debt written off on page 7?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

My own opinion; I think it was very wise idea to create of the SPA fund concept and use the money as their operation budget.

By doing so it divests the general taxpayer, including the anti's etc, from saying they don't want 'their' tax dollars to fund hunting. The MNR's budget, money used to pay the staff etc, is then self financed by the people who use the services.

The problem is that there is a steady declining revenue stream from a steadily declining population of hunters. So 'budget' money has gotten tight.

---

Mikepal,

Ofah claims that hunters are on the rise. Shouldn't revenue stream be on the rise??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What a lot of people don't realize is how much time and manpower us spent on non hunting and fishing activities. CO's deal with forest management infractions, forest fire investigations and many other non hunting/fishing issues. They patrol waterways and lay boating charges and snowmobile and ATV charges. The hikers and campers don't pay license fees. Boaters and ATV riders don't buy licences. Why should sportsmen shoulder the burden? In the end the reality is this government is the one that destroyed evidence of coverups. They have proven to be completely untrustworthy and will pillage ministries to give teachers raises. She already is extending the signed contracts to avoid negative press in the election year. These people just can't be trusted with our money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTurk

Mikepal,
Ofah claims that hunters are on the rise. Shouldn't revenue stream be on the rise??

---

We did a thread on this a few years back that has lots of facts and figures ;
http://www.oodmag.com/community/show...er-Recruitment

Basically, there are lots of people taking the OFAH courses, but it's not translating into license sales and tags purchases...

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

What a lot of people don't realize is how much time and manpower us spent on non hunting and fishing activities. CO's deal with forest management infractions, forest fire investigations and many other non hunting/fishing issues. They patrol waterways and lay boating charges and snowmobile and ATV charges. The hikers and campers don't pay license fees. Boaters and ATV riders don't buy licences. Why should sportsmen shoulder the burden? In the end the reality is this government is the one that destroyed evidence of coverups. They have proven to be completely untrustworthy and will pillage ministries to give teachers raises. She already is extending the signed contracts to avoid negative press in the election year. These people just can't be trusted with our money.

---

Not sure why you think using the SPA as part of the operational budget, because it divest the general public from helping to pay is a good idea Mike. And ulimately, anything that benefits fish and wildlife benfits them to. Would 100s of thousands of people flock to APP alone each year if there were no Moose, no Hybrids to see or howl at? On the last, for the past 20-30 years MNR biologist have been doing surveys, deploying radio collars and more.

Why should we pay for it/everything.............

How much work have people and organisations like DU and Delta done. Sure Waterfolwers get to go hunting. What about the millions who benefits from enjoying the wetalnds, walking the trails, and more.....

How many fish raising stations have been closed in the last 20 years. Know for a fact the Saugeen fishery wouldnt be much of anything these days without a lot of hard work, sweat and more of volunteers. The MNR certainly hasn't come to the table there with much. In fact, they have recently been shut down by order of the MNR. Starting now, no more raising/stocking steelehead, no more fish lifts past Dennys Dam, no more work projects..............

Just a few days ago, there was a thread about "posting" duck blinds and shore spots for openers. It kept getting side tracked a bit by turning the conversation towards "why does the MNR allow them, they just become decrpit and pollution". Which is true, but when put into perspective ( a handful of blinds versus the mountains of pollution and more left by cottagers/weekend frolickers)......

Think, just
Innisfil public boat launch that had to be closed.

Is "baloney" is it what it is. The citizens of Ontario reap enormous benefits, use and abuse the outdoors and resources like stink. Dont come even close to paying their fair share ( the lions share imo). And when you look at the expenditures, the budget for the MoE and MNRF, the "special purpose account" should be just that. An account to fund things that ordinarilarily wouldnt fall under their mandates. Be it it helping to reintroduce Turkey/ElK, or some targetted local regional habitat impovement (aka in conjuction with stakeholders/volunteers, etc, etc)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Yea, pretty much says the same thing...the 'group' is upset to find out the budget is used to provide Salaries and Benefits. It's always been been public knowledge if they had read the annual budget reports.

Would it make them happy if the MNR told them the staff costs came out of the 33% CRF funds rather than the 77% coming from the SPA funds ? :)

Seems like there is some nonsense going on with that group; them seem ill informed and are still complaining even after the MNR spend $500k in the Aylmer district last last and another $837k this year.

---

Don't think they are ill informed at all. They've been around for a while, and I'm sure they've read the budget reports, and may even by privy to info not publicly available. They have a legitimate concern about the transparency of the MNRF expenditures, and given the state of current provincial finances, I don't blame them. It's easy to lump frivolous expenses under some broad heading on a ledger.

One example involves the Aylmer Stakeholders Committee (ASC). The ASC is a small committee formed in 1999 at the request of the Ministry of Natural Resources & Forestry (MNRF: formerly MNR). The ASC represents a group of concerned residents including about 1,400 farmers, landowners, hunters and associated fish and wildlife business representatives across Elgin, Middlesex and Oxford counties within the MNRF’s Southwestern Ontario Wildlife Management Units 91 and 92. Since 2012, the ASC has been pursuing the Ministry for a detailed breakdown of how the province is spending revenue generated by the sales of angling and hunting licences. The amount of money involved is significant – about $74 million in the 2015-16 fiscal year alone. Yet Ontario government explanations as to the disbursement of these funds have been vague at best.
In August, the MNRF provided a 13-page statement covering 2011-12 revenues and expenditures. In the six pages of expenditures provided, there wasn’t a single mention of a fish or a wildlife species. The Ministry did say it spent $65,000 to sell and buy a house. It also spent $4,000 to pay for rental accommodations. The Ministry also spent $6,887 for "medical services," then spent another $105 for dentists; $1,772 for physicians and doctors; $12,251 for psychologists; and an additional $34,216 on "other medical services."

With the combined SPA account generating about $74 million in 2015-16, concerned residents are now discovering there has been little transparency or accountability as to where and how that revenue has been used. In the Stakeholder Committee’s own Aylmer District, which oversees the management of five Wildlife Management Units (No. 90 to 95, tags for hunting deer generated $920,170 last year, yet no government or ministry official can offer a breakdown as to where/how those funds were reinvested in managing the district’s wildlife.

http://www.portstanleynews.com/details/headline.aspx?menu=1024_News_News_ministry-lacks-transparency-regarding-$74-million-in-angling-hunting-revenue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delmer

They have a legitimate concern about the transparency of the MNRF expenditures, and given the state of current provincial finances, I don't blame them. It's easy to lump frivolous expenses under some broad heading on a ledger.

---

I guess if your the anal type and don't accept simply that the wife spent $100 on groceries and demand to see the receipt so you can itemize what she bought for the $100... it might make sense to demand great transparency. Most folks are happy to concede that in order to eat..it costs $100.

My issue is that they publicly threw out individual items without context; like the cost to relocate an MNR employee, aimed only to sensationalize their case. Especially when such things are common place in any dept. and they themselves have probably benefited from similar employee perks.

I don't find anything anal about someone questioning the spending and accounting practices of any level of government. This government is supposedly all about transparency in everything it does. Yet, when questioned specifically about something that it should be able to provide a detailed answer for, it only replies in general terms. They have been less than forthcoming in the past about finances, and that reputation is starting to get people questioning a lot of things they've done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

I guess if your the anal type and don't accept simply that the wife spent $100 on groceries and demand to see the receipt so you can itemize what she bought for the $100... it might make sense to demand great transparency. Most folks are happy to concede that to in order to eat..it costs $100.

---

Apples and oranges......... groceries are spend with "our" household money for "our" personal benefit, and my spouse and I have a very trusting relationship. The provincial & federal governments legally extort tax money from the taxpayer to spend on projects they've cooked up, many with a political agenda. I for one do NOT trust our government. Are you as trusting with Ontario Hydro? I bet they're books look very proper too.

So just what is the purpose of knowing that the MNR bought a new truck, fixed their snowmobiles and bought a new ATV last year ?

Why isn't it good enough to know the spent 3% of the budget on transportation cost ?

At what level of transparency does it need to be before it becomes UFI. ?

OMG..they bought 200 boxes of paper towels with our SPA funds !!!...LOL....

example..this is from the 2013 SPA Fund report...how much more transparency does the report have to provide for this particular program to make people happy ?

Quote:

---

Species & Ecosystem Science


• Perform fish and wildlife population inventory monitoring and assessment such as:
• Collect and analyze hunter surveys for deer, moose, bear, and wolf/coyote to determine the number of animals harvested and hunter effort to support management decisions.
• Conduct Moose Aerial Surveys to determine the health of populations and the sustainable limit of harvest.
• Conduct angler surveys, water quality testing, netting surveys and invasive species surveillance of 500 Ontario lakes to gather information and help manage fish populations.
• Conduct long-term monitoring studies on a set of inland lakes and representative fish communities to help manage several large lakes with intensive fishing pressure.
• Perform research relating to population, habitats and ecosystems such as:
• Partner with hunters to test over 500 harvested deer and elk for presence of Chronic Wasting Disease. All results have been negative to date.
• Conduct research to assess the ecological impact of invasive species on Great Lakes food webs.
• Conduct research to improve understanding of the genetics and stock structure of recreational and commercial fish species to support hatchery practices and stocking.
• Study wildlife populations to determine the population, habitat use, and movement patterns for a variety of game such as elk, deer, moose, wolves, furbearers, and species at risk such as caribou, some bats, field nesting birds, and aerial insectivores.
• Publish State of the Resource Reports to describe the condition, threats, trends and management response associated with specific areas, species, habitats or issue.

https://dr6j45jk9xcmk.cloudfront.net...accessible.pdf

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

...how much more transparency does the report have to provide for this particular program to make people happy ?

---

all depends on how much you trust them...
given their track record, a bit of mistrust is justified. pretty easy to gain it back or at least silence the squeaky wheel (those guys who feel they haven't received much back for their 900k), if you are willing to show the numbers (which they have).

delay in being fully transparent given previous scandals are the issue IMO

Your kidding right? Would you as the business owner except that amateurish attempt at a balance sheet referencing a public funded department?

It should be a year end report with a more detailed categorization and breakdown of funds v expenditures per category or a line item of each expenditure and to whom.

I wouldn't except the quoted part in blue above, as a consumer, as a detailed bill describing what I just spent 74 million on.

Its not unreasonable to even see councilmen, aldermen, etc. with a break down on cell phone charges, transportation charges broken down to rental cars, county car usage, fuel costs or costs for dinners and hotel rooms when conducting business.

They may be truly above board but how could you tell? Their lieing past doesn't lend credibility to their case.

Why would they say the SPA started in 2005?

McGarry's response is correct but a bit weird - the Province spends $100 Million on the MNR, but only about roughly 2/3rds of that is funded through licencing, service fees, and fines (the SPA). The Consolidated Revenue Fund (CFR) that is funded from general Provincial coffers only supplies around $30 million and is designated for capital projects. So, no, the SPA does not cover the 'Ministry's costs', but it does cover the operating costs of the whole fish and wildlife program.

ha ha...I line item expense report for $100 million....to what end ?

I'm sure a vast amount of people...probably close to 99% ...don't read the budget reports now, they sure the heck don't care how much was spent on windshield washer fluid... LOL...

Mike
Can I come manage your financial affairs....pretty please.

What good is it?
Well I "don't know".
Like they didn't know how the health ministry was spending money at Orange and when asked directly "I don't know"
Like we didn't know Unions have been getting "kick backs" for 10 years totally 80,000,000
Where have they spent 300billion in additional debt?

and obviously there are those who do care. Like this group that filed the FoI, odd that your making fun of it/them for it. And why should the obvious have to be stated.

Long story short.
Most "us" have for years, griped about the lack of funding from the province, our fees, diminishing returns, the lack of COs, the lack of enforcement, the lack of SO MUCH and that the public that doesn't pony up near enough and on and on. In essence, the same stuff this group is griping about...............................So what if it took being refused a measly $10,000 to break the camels back for them.....



"penny for your thoughts"
Not sure why your being obstinate/difficult on it. This group is saying/doing nothing the vast majority of us haven't done the past 15-20years.

The lions share of the financial cost is borne by the SPA, and as such,especially in this day with the plight the province is in, theres less and less going into the things they should be doing. When they cut the MNRs budget by 1% or 5% as they have been for years.......what does that mean for the SPA and ultimately our resources.

Thats

The bottom line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

I guess if your the anal type and don't accept simply that the wife spent $100 on groceries and demand to see the receipt so you can itemize what she bought for the $100... it might make sense to demand great transparency. Most folks are happy to concede that in order to eat..it costs $100.

My issue is that they publicly threw out individual items without context; like the cost to relocate an MNR employee, aimed only to sensationalize their case. Especially when such things are common place in any dept. and they themselves have probably benefited from similar employee perks.

---

I think you're missing their point... They chose those items within the context of their needs, which was/is 10 000$. The reason they want itemization is because they aren't trying to trip up the entirety of the MNR they're simply trying to show that 10grand could have been found for their legitimate program by cutting some small non-essentials.

if their cause was so noble they could have all chipped in 10 bucks and raised 14000 lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hunteronwheels

if their cause was so noble they could have all chipped in 10 bucks and raised 14000 lol

---

'So they don't deserve help because it would cost too little? there's some logic.

Thanks all who contributed to this thread.
The gov should be accountable to the last screw they buy, otherwise they will steal and lie.
We as 'the people' are responsible for their actions. We put them in charge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vom Dufenshmirtz

Thanks all who contributed to this thread.
The gov should be accountable to the last screw they buy, otherwise they will steal and lie.
We as 'the people' are responsible for their actions. We put them in charge.

---

Damn straight. We put the idiots in there,now,it's up to us to kick 'em to hel* out. Seeing as how someone went to the trouble to repost this retro thread,I thought it was time to give it a reboot.