First, thanks for the…

First, thanks for the ability to comment.
Second I almost missed it. You need to advertise more.

First I'd like to address something completely ignored in Ministry websites.
The rights of non gun owners to live free of the presence of armed hunters. Where I live, hunters are in the bush 10 months year if you aadd up all the relevant hunting seasons. In the interest of fairness, I'd like to see a 50/50 split. At least 6 months with no hunting activity on Crown land so that non-shooters are protected. Currently, during the moose and deer season we have to confine our walks to park areas, and that greatly reduces our enjoyment of the crown land around us. I'm not asking for better treatment than gun owners, I'm asking for equal treatment. We have several times had young yearling bears without parents turn up on our property, probably after the death of the mother.

Second I'd like to share my own experience.
7 years ago a dead bear was left at the bottom of my driveway by a man who left his garbage out un-protected in a steel bin. It raised a number of points. Those who leave garbage in their yards in bear areas, should be charged with illegal bear baiting. It's not the bears that are the problem, it's people.

A hunter knowingly shot a grouse 10 feet from my property line. I was working in my shop at the a table saw, and could have seriously injured myself because of this action. To prevent this from happening in the future I would have had to prove without a question of doubt that the man endangered me. Apparently under current regulations, possible injury is not cause for laying charges, it must be certain injury.

We found a young hunter 10 meters from our back yard with a loaded weapon, hunting grouse , who claimed he didn't know he couldn't hunt there. He was on crown land, again, there was no legal remedy available.

What you are proposing is absolutely irresponsible. Every hunter in Ontario knows you won't be able to police it. You're going to have people shooting from their cars, and with the level of enforcement in Ontario, there will be practically no penalty. I fail to see how allowing people to bait within legal shooting distance of a road or ATV trail will help solve the already serious problems of over hunting in some areas and poaching. We haven't seen a deer in our area, in years, and everyone in town knows who the poachers are. The MNR can't even do what they are supposed to do now. These things are already un-enforceable. Passing even laxer regulations will simply make the problem worse.

So my response is a counter proposal.
No shooting of any kind within 1.5 KMs of a dwelling or the borders of a municipality or a provincial highway. Hunting confined to properly signed and easily definable areas, bordered by water and ridges with clear signs warning the public that they are entering a designated hunting area. The population of Ontario has risen to the point it is imperative Canada and Ontario plan for the future by telling Ontarians where and when they can hunt, not where they can't. This will stop people from engaging in the types of behaviour noted above, where a simple excuse like "I didn't know I couldn't hunt here" is acceptable.

The area around dumps and any other municipal facility should be extended to 1.5 km, and the areas between the town and the dumps should be fire arms free.

As well we have people participating in target practice, also in areas close enough to our yard to be able to spook out pets.

My argument that is that the current proposal seriously restricts my rights as a non-firearm owner and would be a step in the wrong direction. It is disappointing to see them Ministry being so responsive the rights of Hunting and ATV organizations with so little regard for the rights of the general public.

Is that really the mandate of the MNR?

In short, until the Ministry begins begins to act to make my environment safer, I don't care what the big money organizations think. I don't feel safe, and with good cause. We've had three potentially harmful incidents in less than 10 years, thanks to the gun and hunting lobby and lack of ministry oversight and regulation.

Should the MNR continue with this program and not introduce further control, I will personally launch a crowd funded court challenge arguing the MNR doesn't have to the right restrict my rights and security of person, in this way.

With the recommendation of policies that will further restrict my own rights and freedoms, one of which should surely be the right to equal use of crown land as what is granted to hunters. If they have the right to hunt, I should have the right to be able to hike and camp on crown land without the presence of people carrying loaded fire arms in the vicinity for at least equal time.

There should be no time when hunters are outside of well defined, clearly marked hunting reserves with loaded weapons. They have been fired within 10 meters of my house, another was found within 10 meters of my house, and dead carcasses have been left at the foot of my driveway. And young orphan bears have turned up in my back yard. Conversations with MNR staff have produced no productive regulation. And enforcement is non-existent. The MNR are 40 minutes away, they have their gas rationed, and even though in the case of the carcass dumping the MNR officer conceded a criminal act and been committed, no charges were laid even though an offence was committed.

My health and well being should definitely not be put at risk, for other people' recreational opportunities. The MNR's attitudes towards these regulations are 100 years out of date.

I simply fail to understand how the MNR can take the position that allowing armed hunters with 1.5 KM of a person's residence adequately protects the rights of those of us who don't own, don't use, and don't believe in the use of firearms, by non police/milatry/conservation officers. In what world is a hunter wandering around carrying lethal force, not a threat to the public at large?

If there are to be public hearings on these issues, I would certainly expect to participate, as a representative of the non-shooting public.