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
Printable View
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.
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 MikePal
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 Bluebulldog
I did the same thing, knowing I had read comments on it...found it thru the search function :)Quote:
Originally Posted by smallgamer
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by smallgamer
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.
You're welcome Lakon.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by smallgamer
Well said Smallgamer, I agree with this %100. The limit for pheasant going up to 10 is mind baffling.Quote:
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.
Introduced species, I see why they are doing this. You have people on here talking about how Coyotes were not here originally and needed to be wiped off the map of Ontario but they Pheasant, that should be protected, that makes no sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishhawk
If you are raising them for put and take hunting that is one thing but I think grouse should be protected a lot more than these birds.
I would encourage those spending time and money on raising and releasing Pheasants to spend that same time and money bringing back grouse habitat.
Well it makes sense in so much as people enjoy hunting and eating pheasant and they unlike Coyotes are not numerous, increasing in numbers/range, nor do they eat other game. Be that as it may, kind of "agree" in so much as they are for all intents and purposes a put and take resource, something they (MNR) seem to be getting away from. But even if not, its more than fair to ask if those practices can be continued. Just look at various problems within fishing, hatcheries etc.
But once again, in essence.
We see the MNR doing things that would seem to support the "anecdotal" evidence that it's more than just WTs that are down, but small game as well. As others repeatedly pointed out during the discussions surrounding Coyote/Wolf and hybrid bans.
So at "this" point and given whats available.
Moose going down
Whitetails down (below decent numbers or not is sort of immaterial).
Small game species and others down
Dogs up and being protected (I think for most of the people its the Coyote ban, that causes so much angst/dissagreemnt, when they could just stay with the status quo)
Thanks fishhawk.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishhawk
Read the proposal and kind of makes sense to me. The reason to bring the daily to 10 is to compliment the regulatory changes made a few years ago allowing for the private release of up to 10 birds without an MNR permit. Works for me as buying pheasants 3 at a time was bit of a pita. Always liked the ideal of BYOP.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishhawk
Reduction of grouse to 2 daily fine with me. Reflecting back over the season averaged 2 birds an outing so don't expect it to change much other than being able to say I've limited out most times LOL.
Has anyone shot a full limit of grouse in S Ont in the last 10 ........even 20 years??? I'm sure the opportunity to do so has been few and far between......that should tell you something. Don't think the southern part of the province can sustain a 5 bird limit as I don't know of anyone or have seen anyone post a full limit (from the south) EVER!
As for the pheasants they are ALL put and take, there is NO sustainable population and there for I see no issues with the raised limit as the only place to hunt them is at a game farm or a wildlife area that releases them. Basically a pay to play scenario and if you want to pay then you can play. Now if it was back when the mnr raised and released thousands of them all across the south I would have an issue with the raised limit, or if we had the hardy genetically sustainable birds that are out west . Can't really see why it's an issue when 100% of them are released birds not a wild bird that sustains its own population. Maybe a place like Hullett and others like it will have to impose a 3 bird limit on their property if that is at all possible, or make it a MUST to buy a pheasant "pass" to be able to hunt them there.
That might be the answer regarding pheasants right there.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckslayer
I'm just wondering what places like Hullett, Fingle and Norfolk etc, are going to handle a 10 pheasant limit with there limited pheasant numbers release? A few guys hunting at the right time could take out quite a chunk of the available birds for the season. And as far as I know there isn't a limit at game farms anyways. This will be interesting to see how it will effect these places.
That's my thought as well. duckslayer's idea about a three bird limit at these kind of places is a good one, but I have to assume that PWAs are beholden to provincially mandated bag limits. And the birds released in Essex are released into the township or townships, I'm not sure exactly how their release works, but the birds aren't released onto a preserve.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishhawk
Yes Smallgamer I agree, the county pheasant release programs in Essex, Perth and oxford aren't going to be able to handle such a liberal bag limit. I hope something in the new regulations will exclude places like this from the ten bird limit.
Instead of reducing Jack limits they want to reduce snowshoe hare??? Doesn't make sense to me!
I have no idea about Essex but please enlighten me on the pheasant release programs in Oxford and Perth...............don't think they exist..... I could be wrong but they are long gone as far as I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishhawk
Yes this makes absolutely zero sense to me ether, I personally believe the jack limit needs to be looked at, when is the last time you heard of someone getting a full limit of jacks??? Lot's of guys chasing them and consider it a good day with 1-2 in the bag for the whole group of guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank16
Duckslayer Essex would be the biggest one for a pheasant county release as thay have a club with there own hatchery. Next would be the Perth county. Your right about Oxford they stopped the release in 2014. Perth gets its funding for the pheasants by the sales of the township license. Norfolk also a has a good release. I also agree about the European hare, limit should definitely be lowered.
Are small game numbers down, is that the cause for these proposals. Why don't they concentrate on more predator control and habitat enhancements and leave things the way they are. It really doesn't affect me much because like others said most of time I'm only getting one or to snowshoe hares at the best of times. But and there is a but there was times that i did harvest four hares or four grouse. Its getting harder and harder to find time to get out and hunt why limit people for a couple times out a season. I think the regs are fine the way they are and people should set there own limits. If your having a good season and harvesting limits every time out, slow down a bit and go home LOL I do this when I'm fishing why can't people do this hunting. Enjoy your small game and harvest a couple of meals but be conservative when you should be. My two cents
Do you have a link for info on the pheasant release programs?? Where do they release pheasants in Perth??? Don't think this is happening anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishhawk
The idea that you can manage snowshoe hare thru the daily bag limit is absolutely ludicrous. I supose, I should inform the mnrf that the snowshoe hare population naturally cycles up and down on an aproximate 10 year time frame. I'm sure the mnrf bioligists know better, however I'm sure its not them but the bureaucrats, you know, deputy ministers and the like, that are driving this. The mnrf bureaucracy is full of non hunters with all the urban bias that goes along with that. How could the bioligist even offer informed direction when the mnrf has put zero into studying snowshoe hare in the past 50 years. This is anecdotal imformation ; two years ago I was informed by a kemptville office CO, that they guaged the area hare population by how much road kill they see. I mean how "sciencetific" can you get.
If they are genuinely trying to manage snowshoe hare they should hang thier heads for this attempt. This is all about the mnrf agenda of restricting and reducing opportunities.
Protect the swamps, fencelines and habitat that wildlife need to flourish thats what will make a difference!!
For the past fifty years the hare season in units 1 thru 59 has run from sept 1 thru to june 15, no limit.
Where is the snowshoe hare population of least concern, units 1 thru 59. {no problem}
The snowshoe hare population has been on local 10 year cycles in those units for at least 10,000 years.
The mnrf {restrict and forbid} must have elevated themselves to the status of gods, if they believe they can control the hare population in those units in any way.
Heaven forbid if the mnrf should try and promote this underutilized resource.
I can't help but wonder if the reduced limits are correlated to the recent restrictions on Coyote and Wolf?
Seems to me that if they're reducing the amount of predator control taking place, it will have an effect on small game numbers.
I wonder if this more about managing hunters than wildlife.
Snapping turtle season would be one month long, and limits halved compared to 2015.
I was wondering when those were going to change.
Looks like I gain a squirrel season, but lose a month or two on snowshoe hare - not that I hunted them in the late spring anyway.
Not much info online about the Perth release, I found out about it by some hunters posting about it in the upland forum on here.Quote:
Do you have a link for info on the pheasant release programs?? Where do they release pheasants in Perth??? Don't think this is happening anymore.
Here's a link to the club that does the Essex lake shore area= www.gnsportsmen.com
Ya I think the release is long gone in Perth..............................but yet they still want you to buy a township/county lic..................Used to be a pen close to my parents where they raised them for Perth, hasn't been used in over 20 years and is no longer standing.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishhawk
If they did cancel the program it would of been in the last couple of years, Iast time I hunted Perth I believe it was 2012 and I got pheasants. They started buying fully grown birds directly from a supplier to save on costs. I know of a couple of upland hunters on this forum that hunt in that area, maybe they might chime in and let us know if it's still going on.
Thank you to everyone who has participated in this thread. Whether you agree with all, some, or none of my opinions on this topic I encourage you to submit your comments to the EBR. Truthfully, I have my reservations regarding the legitimacy of the EBR process, but it's what we have so let's use it. Cheers.
I certainly agree with your assertion that the EBR process legitimacy. I'm beginning to think it's nothing more than PR window dressing.Quote:
Originally Posted by smallgamer
I am pretty sure there is still a release. I bought a permit at Western Auto in Mitchell up until this past season. I found birds just North of Mitchell a couple times near a turnip operation and also in Gads Hill swamp. The problem I had with the program was the guys who hunt the birds also release them. They keep things very hush hush. I believe if you pay for a permit, you should get a map of the release sights and a schedule of release dates.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckslayer
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilly
......and that's the problem when you intrust your money to someone else. If I'm going to spend money to hunt pheasant I want to know where and when released also. Don't trust nothing but my own eyes.
Last time I hunted out there I got some pheasants on a property close to Wildwood. I was told that the birds where released close to some of the conservation lands in the county. I think if they want to grow the program and get more funding from hunter's, they should provide a map of release sites when you purchase the licence, like Norfolk does.Quote:
I am pretty sure there is still a release. I bought a permit at Western Auto in Mitchell up until this past season. I found birds just North of Mitchell a couple times near a turnip operation and also in Gads Hill swamp. The problem I had with the program was the guys who hunt the birds also release them. They keep things very hush hush. I believe if you pay for a permit, you should get a map of the release sights and a schedule of release dates.
Hullett is not "their property." It belongs to the provincial government. And, as has been pointed out on this forum many times, FOH (which manages the area) is not permitted to impose any fees for access or hunting.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckslayer
Well, the fact that they take your comments doesn't imply they have to do anything except nod and say, "Duly noted."Quote:
Originally Posted by smallgamer
Your comments concerning the proposed changes are IMO bang on.
Release dates should not be made public ... all that does is concentrate the pressure, encourage competitive and unsafe behavior, and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilly
I ignore the Perth pheasant program because they refuse to release info on release sites. A couple of years back we had someone on here encouraging area hunters to buy pheasant licences so the program could continue ... when asked for info on the program he went silent.
This whole thing says to me that there will never be wild pheasants in ontario, so do whatever you want with them. The rest of the changes say the mnrf doesn't have to manage or think about small game for the next 100 years.
This govt will likely put a fee on each bird you shoot...
Just because they will still sell you a township/county license doesn't mean the program still exists, ever heard of government cash grabs???? LOL. I'd love to see some proof the release still exists. Maybe they still do release birds but if they do it is so few and nothing like the thousands of birds they used to release and def not worth buying a license and going after them, I guess unless your in the know of release sites.................Quote:
Originally Posted by dilly
I realize that and that is why I said "if at all possible" . I realize it is government property and they can't have their own regs/fee's, just trying to come up with a solution to the raised limits and maybe if they lobbied for it in these circumstances they would be able to impose a fee or Hullett property 3 bird limit for pheasant hunting so the program can continue.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Quote:
Originally Posted by duckslayer
Don't quite see your argument. If the government charges a fee you call it a cash grab and against it unless you are in the know yet endorse FOH charging a fee as a positive. Seems a bit contradictory. How I see it the only birds I'd pay to hunt are the ones purchased by me and released by me especially on public land.
Do you ever see anyone's point but your own??? Maybe go read it again..........Quote:
Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers
Not sure what is hard to comprehend............ if they charge a fee and DO release birds......great.....no cash grab!! If they charge a fee and don't release birds its a cash grab...........
Hullett could charge a fee as they DO release birds.....................again not to hard to comprehend for the normal minded.............by the way I would rather see hullett (and places like it) be able to to keep their limit at 3 while the rest of Ont has the raised limits as it's basically a pay to play scenario
I'm all for a pheasant release and buying a county licenses if they still released the birds but they don't (or at least not enough to consider buying a lic) and I would not want to see the limits raised if this was the case but it just is a non issue anymore so I'm fine with the raised limits for the game farm aspect.
Has anyone actually seen the new regulations,or is all this merely conjecture from proposals?
This is exactly the intent of the changes. Remember this goes along with a management strategy that says (a) native species have priority, (b) no reintroductions without hard science, and (c) manage the habitat and the hunters. Now, that's a great strategy if you're going to do population surveys and do the science ... if you aren't going to invest in it, though, it's benign neglect. And for phez, it's "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."Quote:
Originally Posted by Downwind
I would rather see no change at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckslayer
As things stand, you can shoot 20 birds at a game farm and have them in your possession. If questioned by a CO, you can show a receipt to prove how you came by those birds. The same rule can easily apply to people who buy and release their own birds on private land.
There is no reason to raise the limit.
The proposed regulations are on the EBR, available for comment until 30 Jan. Unless MNRF's plans change, these will be the new small game regs for this fall.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
https://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-Ex...tusId=MTk4NjY5
http://apps.mnr.gov.on.ca/public/fil...egulations.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
I totally agree if that was the case were you could produce proof you released the 10 birds. In reality I guess that is the only issue that really needs addressed.,I should have worded it for the put and take aspect not game farm if that was already the case where you could shoot up to 20 birds and just require proof of purchase.
Like I said I would rather see the bigger release's programs like they had in the past come back, be happy paying for a county lic. and no regulatory changes at all, but they are gone!
Everyone should note that there are two small game related proposals on the EBR right now, open for comment until January 30, 2017:
1) Policy proposal: "A Small Game and Furbearer Management Framework for Ontario" https://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-Ex...tusId=MTk4NjY3
2) Regulatory proposal: "Amendments to Ontario Regulation 663/98 (Area Descriptions), Ontario Regulation 665/98 (Hunting), Ontario Regulation 666/98 (Possession, Buying and Selling of Wildlife), and Ontario Regulation 670/98 (Open Seasons) under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 to streamline and modernize the management of small game and furbearer wildlife species in Ontario" https://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-Ex...tusId=MTk4NjY5
While the reg changes have been the focus of much discussion on this and other boards, I would encourage all those interested in small game to also read and comment on the proposed policy framework, as this will have the biggest impact on the future of small game management in Ontario. If the proposed policy framework is adopted, it will guide all future regulatory and management decisions.
Many people in the conservation community have for along time been asking the Province to come up with a strategic policy direction on small game, and we were excited when we heard that the proposed framework was coming. Unfortunately, the proposed document that has been posted on the EBR (https://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-Ex...tusId=MTk4NjY3) is quite underwhelming, in my opinion.
Have a look at the proposed proposed policy framework and submit your comments to the Province by January 30. The document covers a broad range of topics which can make responding a bit overwhelming, so my suggestion is comment on what you know and what interests you.
I think they should leave the limits and seasons alone. They should have small game licences like fishing licenses. Have a conservation and sporting license just for limit purposes. If you think your going to harvest 5 snowshoe hare for example or at least want an option too harvest that many then you buy the the corresponding license. If you average two hare everytime out then you might consider the other license. Just my two cents.
I am opposed to these changes. Grouping WMU's 68-95 is too broad....as was previously said...this is just about managing hunters rather than managing small game wildlife. I also bet this is the "tip of the iceberg"....next will be large game (deer, bear, etc.)....with one set of rules. I hunt in the Kawartha's where there is a very healthy ruffed grouse and snowshoe hare population....limit reductions are not necessary there.... or many other units within these proposals.....they may be appropriate in Southwestern Ontario. Below is part of my submission previously sent
A "broad approach" to managing small game in our province is not appropriate. In my opinion, the needs and issues relating
to Small Game Management in say, Essex to Middlesex Counties are far different than the Bruce Peninsula, Peterborough region or Kawartha Lakes. If you want to reduce the number of Management Wildlife Units (WMU) in Southern Ontario or group them together (say 3-5 units) for this purpose, I would support that approach. But the proposal to group units 68-95 for Small Game Management is far too broad. These limit reductions will in turn reduce hunting opportunities, negatively impact tourism and related
economic activity.
Personally I think they should do something about the limit on jacks and grouse, I haven't seen a jack in years in Waterloo or Oxford.
For that rationale to be valid, you would have to prove that hunters are actually holding the European Hare population in check. I doubt that very much, more likely modern farming practice and habitat loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by fieldtrip
Are you at least seeing some wild turkey taking over their habitat? I've heard that is happening quite a lot down here in SW ontario.Quote:
Originally Posted by fieldtrip
You have nailed that one squarely on the head, when fence rows are taken out to make larger fields, you then have removed a lot of habitat.Quote:
Originally Posted by swampsinger
Habitat, habitat, habitat, without it we will wind up with nothing to hunt, let alone just seeing the wildlife like we used to back a number of years ago.
The MNRF does not manage game populations.Never have.limiting the tags,playing with season dates is a tool of game management,but should not be the ONLY tool.It is the least effective.Even in this,where does the info for making decisions come from.I have not been able to get numbers from the OPP regarding deer,moose,vehicle collisons.Do they even exist.The MNR doesn't have them,I Went their first.
They will allow us to hunt game as long as the game is here.But they have nothing to do with thier prescence. In their defence,how can they manage a game population without the authority over being able to manage the habitat.They have become one more political government arm.That's all.In S Dakota for example,haying is not allowed until July 15.After the nesting season.
When I raised pheasants,I needed a license to raise them,and another to kill them,yes that's right.I was only allowed to kill 3 a day.with bureacracy like that,how can we think anything they do will be right.
Snapping turtles are mentionned, which I find interesting. I actually had hopes of going out and getting a couple this upcoming summer. Hopefully I'll still be able to.
It doesn’t look good.
Changes will be made in accordance with the Proposed Management Plan for the Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) in Canada.
[5/Restrict snapping turtle harvest across Ontario in accordance with guidance provided by the draft Small Game and Furbearer Management Framework, in consideration of the biology of the species, and consistent with recommendations in the Proposed Management Plan for the Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) in Canada.]
You can read what the proposed plan is here. ( It is only 2 a day now so.....)
The proposed Management Plan for the Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) in Canada.
I checked the OFAH website....no mention of the proposed changes to small game regulations.....they too don't seem to care about the management of small game in Ontario. (but they were quick to respond to the migratory baiting proposals....big $$$$ big clubs can always grease their wheels).....sad.
Further edit: I was kindly emailed by a member, a copy of the OFAH submission....thank you. I was dead wrong...they sent a detailed submission. Their theme was they same as my submission.....the area covered is far too broad. Thanks... I stand corrected.
Don't know how you missed it. They were all over it to get members to comment on the EBR. I got two e-mails from them in one week. There's even a dedicated staffer in the office looking after that file,specifically. Your comment about them is miles off base.Quote:
Originally Posted by hollywood
I am glad to correct my comments.....but I sent OFAH a copy of my club's submission opposing the changes and never got a reply. The only mention on their website is the following, which seems to support the government's justification for the changes:Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Small game hunting regulations in Ontario cover a variety of species across a vast province, creating a complex and sometimes confusing system. The OFAH has been advocating for a complete review of the small game hunting regulations to streamline seasons and to allow hunting opportunities that reflect current small game populations.
Is there any other OFAH comments available on this issue.....sorry if I missed it.
Further edit: I was kindly emailed by a member, a copy of the OFAH submission....thank you. I was dead wrong...they sent a detailed submission. Their theme was they same as my submission.....the area covered is far too broad. Thanks... I stand corrected.
Hollywood,Quote:
Originally Posted by hollywood
You;re right; for some reason the small game section of the OFAH website hasn't been updated to reference this matter, but as Trimmer said, the OFAH did a big e-mail call-out to members and a dedicated a page to it in the Hotline in your OOD mag. A detailed, consolidated response to the two EBR postings was sent in by the OFAH.