Filing a compliment or complaint against a Conservation Officer.

[blasted_saber]

If you cant differentiate between party hunting for moose and any sort of fishing then you should stop fishing and hunting altogether

Maybe to be consistent they should get rid of all party harvesting. that would simplify the rules for everyone.

[GW11]

If you cant differentiate between party hunting for moose and any sort of fishing then you should stop fishing and hunting altogether

Agreed! Every year we see the same comments towards party hunting. I would bet that those who are quick to slam party hunting have never been a part of a group hunt for big game

[redd foxx]

Remember the days when only the cow or bull tag holder could actually pull the trigger on one of those critters. I wonder how much abuse there was to that law even though the law was black and white??

[Waftrudnir]

Look as with all rules its because enough people took advantage and a law has been created....

However, that is not the end to that story! Laws are only worth a thing if they are followed. More laws and foremost more complex laws mean people will follow them less.
Does anyone really believe that the average guy who buys a fishing licence at CT, will read the regs cover to cover?
Does anyone really believe that more than a few percent of those who actually try will holistically understand them?
Does anyone really believe that party fishing is a concern for our fish?
There a thousands out there who give a **** about the regs in the first place, because of their race. No policy maker dares to tackle that issue.

[finsfurfeathers]

However, that is not the end to that story! Laws are only worth a thing if they are followed. More laws and foremost more complex laws mean people will follow them less.
Does anyone really believe that the average guy who buys a fishing licence at CT, will read the regs cover to cover?
Does anyone really believe that more than a few percent of those who actually try will holistically understand them?
Does anyone really believe that party fishing is a concern for our fish?
There a thousands out there who give a **** about the regs in the first place, because of their race. No policy maker dares to tackle that issue.

So what the heck are you saying?
Since the majority don't follow the rules we should have no rules?
How the heck are we supposed to control abuse?

What is so complex as you are allowed to catch and keep X number of fish a day period.
You can eat them, give them away but you can not catch and keep X plus 1 for a buddy.

People are by nature self centered and would rather screw over someone else in order to cater to their own self indulgent nature.
Hence its not the rules that are the problem its the people and the reason we need CO's out there to monitor and regulate individuals who creatively interpret the rules out there for there own selfish reasons.

[MikePal]

Hence its not the rules that are the problem its the people and the reason we need CO's out there to monitor and regulate individuals who creatively interpret the rules out there for there own selfish reasons.

That's very well put....you're right.

[Waftrudnir]

yes, people are self centered and no CO nor pages and pages of regulations will change that.

everyone who mingles once in a while with "the locals", would have heard interesting stories...
the response I got most often for a careful attempt in pointing out that this is not exactly what the regs read, was how long they (and everyone they know) are doing that (i.e. never read or understood the regs). typically, there is mentioning that after all they never saw a CO out in the lake anyway.

what I'm trying to get at is that just writing something on paper does not change behaviour.
so there are two options:
a) brutal enforcement (which we cannot afford) or
b) getting people to voluntarily comply to common sense rules that are proportionate to the risk/impact on natural resources and public safety (along with reasonable enforcement)

changing people's behaviour is not as impossible as it sounds; it's however a very different approach, which requires (among other things) a different level of education on the topic

look at it this way, a person well educated on the topic at hand does not need a lot of regulations. the more you give them, the more time they will spend evaluating them to find a work around. such "misinterpretations" (if done often enough) would then lead to more complex rules. Kind of, if one bandaid didn't fix the bleeding put another one and another one on it again - and while you are at it, another couple of over here, just in case you cut yourself down the road).
conversely, those who don't have sufficient understanding of a certain topic will often get lost in (rather irrelevant / low impact) details and not be able to comply.
so, who wins from having complex regulations? certainly not our natural resources nor its users

[Gilroy]

Mingling with the locals is pretty interesting and has brought up some interesting topics in the past ie Gaming the System where a lot of locals have wife,s girlfriends apply for tags when they probably will not be afield.City folks do this also.

But some of the old notions are to me just plain wrong,in a conversation in the Moose camp last week it was suggested that if a guy needed to take 3 or 4 deer a year to feed his family,then so be it.

This idea has been supported on here by many locals and again to me its just plain wrong and really,really out of date. Back in the day when a guy might have "poached" these deer to feed his family,there was not the social safety net we have these days.

Now I suppose supporters would say a man should not have to go to a food bank and lower himself to feed his kids and still justify the poaching,to me its still wrong and is taking away from the enjoyment of the sport by fellow hunters.

So where do we want to draw the line between a poacher and a hungry man feeding the family and us general run of the mill hunters?

[Waftrudnir]

gilroy, that topic is actually worth some serious discussion.
for the time being I was more thinking of very low hanging fruits:
all of those who think the regs are just perfect, may want to explain to me:
a) why it is so important to have for example the .30 caliber restriction in parts of Southern Ontario (you know its 2016 and it didn't even made much sense half a century ago) or
b) why we still have religious restrictions to hunt on Sundays?
The list goes on and on...

[finsfurfeathers]

yes, people are self centered and no CO nor pages and pages of regulations will change that.

everyone who mingles once in a while with "the locals", would have heard interesting stories...
the response I got most often for a careful attempt in pointing out that this is not exactly what the regs read, was how long they (and everyone they know) are doing that (i.e. never read or understood the regs). typically, there is mentioning that after all they never saw a CO out in the lake anyway.

what I'm trying to get at is that just writing something on paper does not change behaviour.
so there are two options:
a) brutal enforcement (which we cannot afford) or
b) getting people to voluntarily comply to common sense rules that are proportionate to the risk/impact on natural resources and public safety (along with reasonable enforcement)

changing people's behaviour is not as impossible as it sounds; it's however a very different approach, which requires (among other things) a different level of education on the topic

look at it this way, a person well educated on the topic at hand does not need a lot of regulations. the more you give them, the more time they will spend evaluating them to find a work around. such "misinterpretations" (if done often enough) would then lead to more complex rules. Kind of, if one bandaid didn't fix the bleeding put another one and another one on it again - and while you are at it, another couple of over here, just in case you cut yourself down the road).
conversely, those who don't have sufficient understanding of a certain topic will often get lost in (rather irrelevant / low impact) details and not be able to comply.
so, who wins from having complex regulations? certainly not our natural resources nor its users

That only works in an utopian world.
Most recent example the Port Hope fall salmon show. It degenerated to the point of disgust enough to force a change. Knowing people respond only to the stick brutal enforcement was the solution. Seems to have worked. For me forget the biologist and other staff and hire full on CO to beat the rules into people. Brutal enforcement and punishment is the only way to change ones mind set.