"Minister Bucks Wildlife Fund Critics"

[TrapJack]

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]"

[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.

[TrapJack]

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.

[MikePal]

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 ?

[TrapJack]

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.

[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.

[Gregoire1960]

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.

[MikePal]

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

[Gregoire1960]

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?

[BigTurk]

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