In response the proposals…

In response the proposals for 2021:

I support the following changes:
- new selective harvest approach
- the moose hunting license as a product that allows hunting of moose but does not come with a tag that automatically allows the harvest of a calf
- preference point system for distributing tags
- bonus preference point for northern residents
- primary allocation
- 2nd chance allocation

I strongly disagree with the proposals to establish new, more restrictive party hunting rules. This will decimate the family traditions and culture of moose hunting. Our family and friends have always applied for tags the way the OMNR recommended (in order to coincide with the guaranteed or large group sizes). Over the years, we have been content to take our conservative number of tags, just so that we could ensure the tradition of an annual family & friends hunt. In recent years, the women and the children in our family have harvested the majority of our moose. If the party hunting size is reduced to a max of 10, we would be forced to exclude members of our immediate family.
A direct example of this - in my immediate family, someone will be left out:
1) myself
2) my wife
5) our three children
6) my mother
7) my father
8) my brother
9) my sister-in-law
10) my niece
11) mother-in-law
12) father-in-law

Let’s say (under the proposed changes) that my father decides one year that he will keep his name off the tag so that we can make the max of 10 hunters that would be allowed in a party. Now he (the one who introduced us all to the tradition) can’t even be out walking with us at moose camp because he would be illegally participating in the hunt as “an extra set of eyes”.

Another issue with this is new hunter retention and recruitment. For example, take a small group of 4 or 5 men who have always party hunted together. These hunters would not be allowed to each bring out a partner and child with them to participate in a moose hunt because they would then have a party larger than 10.

It has been noted in the media that women are the fastest growing group of newly certified hunters in the province. It has been documented that typically, women are getting certified so that they can join their family or their partner in the tradition of hunting. The proposal to cap parties at a max of 10 will directly impede the recruitment of female and young hunters because mentor hunters will not have the opportunity to add extra hunting apprentices to their party. This proposal is grossly discriminatory in nature.

In regards to “tag shopping” (listed as a concern under recommendation #5 in the BGMAC Moose Management Review), where hunters shoot a moose then go out looking for another group who has the appropriate tag for the animal they illegally harvested:
This illegal practice would be easily prevented by having a tag holder list all party members allowed to hunt on their tag by a set date (prior to season opening). No need to limit the number of people in the party as long as the party is pre-determined.

I strongly disagree with changing the distance members of a hunting party can be from the tag holder down to 3km. Reducing the distance that the members of a hunting party can be from the tag down to 3km is extremely dangerous and restrictive. Not only is it unsafe to have a group of hunters confined to a radius of 3km, legislating that they do so would be a liability once the inevitable accident occurs. A radius of 3km is not much area once you consider roads and water bodies that would be included in that area. Forcing hunters to hunt that close together will also decrease hunter satisfaction in their hunting opportunity.

If the goal is to reevaluate after 3 years in order to see what affects the new changes will have made for the moose population and for hunter satisfaction, but so many variables have been altered, then it will be impossible to identify the changes that worked or did not work. There was hunter demand for sound science and data. In the name of sound science, only a limited number of variables can be altered at a given time. After implementing mandatory reporting (to provide more accurate harvest data), the proposed 2020 changes, the preference point system, and allocating calf specific tags, it is quite possible that fill rates won’t have to be tampered with after all. Tampering with fill rates will have a detrimental affect on hunter satisfaction. You would be selling hunters a value-decreased opportunity.
Why not take the 3 years to see what affects those changes bring about. If more measures are required, then consider the other variables. In the meantime, if 10-15 (or more) hunters are satisfied with the opportunity to hunt on a tag or two, then leave them to it.

In regards to the “other related efforts beginning 2020”, I strongly support increased communication surrounding any approved changes. Most importantly, should the “preference point system” be accepted, it will be critical that hunter draw history and point totals are updated and clearly conveyed to hunters on an annual basis. In similar fashion to how the current annual regulation summaries outline the group sizes that were allocated tags in the previous year, future regulation summaries will need to indicate how many points were required by a hunter to receive each type of tag, for each WMU, in the previous year.