BAIT POLICY REVIEW COMMENTS…

BAIT POLICY REVIEW COMMENTS

1)Movement of Bait

The commercial movement of bait from the far North in zone A is very low. Any commercial operators residing or running their business based in Zone A are then restricted from utilizing any allocated BHA’s outside of this zone boundary rendering them useless. Any outposts in Zone A, (fly in or otherwise) would then be restricted from supplying their guests with bait unless it was trapped within Zone A and provided by the camp operator. As a result of this change, and due to the vast majority of bait being flown in with the guests, this will greatly hinder the revenue and tourism to lodges and outposts which typically stay busy during the entirety of the open water season. Any disruption or restriction to using live bait in this area will certainly decrease the amount of clients willing to choose these types of areas for fishing and outdoor experiences. This will also cause a ripple effect in the bait industry: Fewer clients = less revenue for commercial operators = fewer minnows sold = lower demand for a retailer stocks = lower demand from harvester.

Enforcement

Enforcement in the bait industry has been well received in Northern Ontario to present day – With more restrictions often comes more complex and tedious issues. With the flow of bait to these areas being so greatly restricted it is a cause for concern where enforcement efforts and resources do not have the capacity to take on these new challenges. In an effort to “cheat the system” it would be as simple as encountering a group with bait on the lake in Zone A and being told the camp had supplied them with the bait – Follow up with the camp owner who simply says “yeah I trapped them from lake A or river B” – how is enforcement supposed to enforce and verify where the bait was harvested – a simple log book inspection which can easily be forged would not suffice… If these areas are only accessible by aircraft, is the MNRF willing to spend thousands on an aircraft in the hopes that they may find one camp owner not following the rules of bait movement which have been occurring for several decades? •How is the MNRF to address the loss of business from a commercial operator but instead, a FN individual decides to capitalize on the business opportunity – are FN individuals going to be held to the same standard to help promote a healthy and ecologically sustainable ecosystem?

2)Receipts

An angler having to keep receipts for a 2 week period is not practical at a local capacity. At present, many anglers cannot remember to carry their fishing license on them while fishing. I suspect a receipt would be no different. •This proposed change affects bait that has been commercially harvested – how would the MNRF handle scenarios where a harvester gives bait to an individual for use and no money has changed hands, and therefore no receipt was issued or required? Anglers often keep minnows at their home. After purchasing 2 dozen medium minnows for roughly 15 dollars it’s often common practice for anything left over from the trip to be kept in a container or bag and placed into the fridge or perhaps a holding tank in the garage. In some cases, a 2 week period would be all that is necessary to use these minnows depending on the time of the year. IF stored properly minnows can last weeks and even months. It is not reasonable to want people to use or dispose of these minnows within a 2 week period, in many cases it may cause more of an issue with minnows being dumped into creeks, ponds, and other tributaries that run through properties, or perhaps are only just 50 yards down the road. This proposed change could have an adverse effect on the landscape. Enforcement

Perhaps the MNRF has a plan to address this from an enforcement stand point, but it is the opinion of many that there will be common trends developed by the public to avoid this proposed change. “I trapped them myself yesterday” would become a common explanation in this circumstance. Perhaps you can compare it to the 21 day camping rule where no matter how long the trailer has been at that popular camping spot the tenant always responds with “oh I just pulled in here yesterday” when an officer asks how long they have been there. How can an officer possibly determine when and where bait was harvested, and by what means. •How will MNRF address this proposed change if the bait was harvested commercially, but given to individuals free of charge? •How will the MNRF address a FN person who holds bait all year for him and his friends to go fishing every weekend?

3)Possession In Parks

With regard to the angler’s perspective, any body of water which encounters a PP or CR may have some restricted areas. With this proposed change it becomes unfair that one side of the lake can hold and use live bait, whereas the other side it is prohibited. The waterbody is connected, and last time I saw a minnow in a lake it didn’t obey any invisible lines put on the landscape by the MNRF. One good example of this is in the Dryden area on Eagle Lake and its boundary water with Eagle Dogtooth PP. •How would the MNRF handle waterbodies and chains of lakes where one must travel from point A to point B and cross through a PP or CR in the process, whether by water, land or air? Commercially; areas with waterbodies that are divided with PP or CR areas and regular areas will encounter a crippling loss of tourism use. Businesses within the PP or CR area that cannot possess bait will see a loss in clients as these people can simply book at a lodge 500 yards down the shoreline where they are able to keep and use live bait. •With the MNRF proposing these changes, will they be imposed on FN individuals as well since they would be equally responsible for the spread of harmful organisms across the landscape and into waters within PP and CR’s?

Enforcement

The intent of this proposed legislation is to stop/prevent the movement of organisms that are harmful to our aquatic environment. This means that having areas with split waterbodies and lake chains does not align with the intent of this proposed rule. If an individual loses all their bait due to fish, or perhaps a bait bucket malfunction and the PP or CR line is 10 meters away where there is “no possession allowed” how can the government expect this rule to be enforced while IN the restricted zone? The damage to the fishery at that point is already done. Invasive species and organisms don’t respect an imaginary boundary on the lake, if parts of a lake are open, the problems will spread.

Conclusion

In conclusion most if not all people can relate to the reasoning and intent behind these proposed changes. No person wants to see our aquatic environment come to a point where its use and enjoyment becomes anything less than spectacular. I think there are many issues that need to be addressed with respect to boundaries, the people that it affects, and how it will impact the tourism and bait industry in the north, but otherwise it’s a step towards protecting our resources. Hopefully there are peaceful conclusions that can be reached.

[Original Comment ID: 209901]