Proposed changes to small game regs.

[fishhawk]

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.

Well said Smallgamer, I agree with this %100. The limit for pheasant going up to 10 is mind baffling.

[Fox]

The limit for pheasant going up to 10 is mind baffling.

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.

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.

[JBen]

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)

[smallgamer]

Well said Smallgamer, I agree with this %100. The limit for pheasant going up to 10 is mind baffling.

Thanks fishhawk.

[finsfurfeathers]

Well said Smallgamer, I agree with this %100. The limit for pheasant going up to 10 is mind baffling.

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.
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.

[duckslayer]

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.

[smallgamer]

. 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.

[fishhawk]

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.

[smallgamer]

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.

[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.