The proposed changes to…

The proposed changes to moose management does have some good features, and the point-system addresses the concerns of older hunters who have gone many years without tags. However it does so at the expense of young hunters who know essentially have to earn their right to a tag (and for some, it will take many, many years before they even get close to having enough points). A percentage of tags that remain random, like the current system, at least gives new hunters a chance of drawing a tag, even if it is a slim chance. Moose hunting opportunities shouldn't be reserved in high-demand WMUs to the older members of the hunting fraternity. Pointing to WMUs that are highly inaccessible (i.e. costly to hunt in), or to archery only tags (requiring a lot more experience) doesn't necessarily help, as these hunts too are for the most part out of reach of young hunters. I was fortunate to draw my first gun bull tag in WMU 28 when I was a teenager, and I would hate to think that no other young hunter will ever be as lucky and fortunate as I was.

I also object to the changes proposed to party hunting. A limit of 10 hunters is very small, especially if the hunting party is encouraging youth and a lot of parent + apprentice or young hunter pairs (as should be the case for all those who value the future of the sport). And so too is the 3km radius from the tag holder. I hunt WMU, in an area where concession roads are not on a metric grid, and often 2 miles apart. Two hunters hunting the same block would have to either walk through the bush to meet up at a kill site, or drive around on the concession roads (which would almost certainly separate the tag holder from the successful member of the party by more than 3km). Imposing a metric distance on a grid that was created before the metric system is impractical, and narrow-minded in terms of how one perceives that groups hunt (we don't all own ATVs, we don't all call our moose to us, and we don't all hunt clear-cuts with logging roads or established trails between us, yet we are stlll party hunting with robust communication between party members, all well within the rules prior to this overly restrictive proposal).

I also have concerns about "variable pricing" for tags. Sounds innocent enough as proposed, but when a tag is perceived to be more valuable because demand is higher, then the next logical step would be to consider some WMUs more valuable than others, and that's a step that I feel would be unfair, if it were ever considered. All Ontario hunters should be treated the same, and not penalized if their hunting property happens to be in a highly sought after WMU, rather than a more remote inaccessible WMU. That's not managing the resource, that's taking advantage of the situation to maximize revenue. And for that reason, I am against even preferential pricing for bull versus cow-calf or calf-only tags, because I feel the motivation behind such a proposal is all about maximizing revenues (to compensate for lost revenue that will surely come with the other changes in this proposal).

I also feel that this proposal hasn't given adequate information regarding how license costs will change. What will it cost to apply, without any intent to buy a license. What will the license cost when one is successful. The proposal is taking about changes for as early as 2020; surely then it isn't too early to disclose costs for the same timeframe! Commenting on how it will cost less over a moose hunters career, or using the term "modest" is way too vague to draw meaningful comment.

I also do not agree with separate quotas for archery tags; crossbows being the main reason. The argument that success rates are lower with archery tags is not taking the full picture into account. Crossbows are making it too easy for hunters to "make the switch", and then with the advantages of being able to hunt earlier in the season, and with highly realistic electronics calls becoming quite affordable, I think archery already has plenty of advantages without then having a separate quota (as a means to increase the number of archery tags and thus overall adult tags allocated, which of course is the motivation). But at the same time, while reported success may be lower, how many moose (and bears, and deer), are wounded and not recovered with archery tags, especially inexperienced crossbow hunters?

Lastly, the proposal doesn't really address a major problem with the season changes that were very recently implemented. Allowing cows to be harvested, and orphaning calves, in northern WMUs before the calf season and after the calf season. Why aren't cows only allowed to be harvested only the same time period as calves, whatever period that might be. I firmly believe that under no circumstance should a hunter shoot a cow and knowingly (or by necessity of the tag system) pass on a calf (especially twin calves), because a calf realistically has no chance of making it through even a mild northern winter alone. That is an irresponsible and usually avoidable waste of the resource.