There appears to be a strong…

There appears to be a strong bias to this proposal. Within the proposal details, I only see what is viewed as the positive effects to opening up training facilities and does not highlight any negative effects, and it appears there are many more negative effects.

“The anticipated economic consequences of the proposal are expected to be largely neutral to positive. The proposed legislation would enable licences to be issued to new persons who were previously unable to obtain a licence. This removes barriers and creates an opportunity for new persons to participate in the existing regulatory framework” then goes on to say “There is no specific fee associated with the transfer of a licence. Persons who wish to transfer their train and trial area to a new licence holder would be required to notify the ministry about the transfer and the new owner.” New licence holders only pay 100$ per year, and there is no specific fee for transferring a licence. It’s not like an abundance of money will flood into the OMNRF for these facilities to occur. I don’t see where this is an economic benefit because the amount of time and effort put into filing applications, going through the approval process, and paying staff to do it does not balance out. The resources used to provide licences to an outdated practice is better used elsewhere in the ministry, one that is already tight for funding and budget cuts.

The thought would be to reduce underground practices and promote strict policies for running these facilities. It is a known fact that Ontario is extremely understaffed for conservation officers. Many hunters and anglers carelessly do whatever they please because they know the chances of them getting caught are few and far between, and they know where to avoid the CO’s. Is there a guarantee that more officers will be hired so these facilities can be monitored to ensure they are keeping up with the strict standards? Will this proposal reduce underground facilities or will be just keep doing what they are doing anyways because there’s not enough enforcement to catch them in the first place?

After providing these training facilities, can hunters 100% guarantee that they can control their dogs from entering private properties or harassing non-target wildlife? Can the hunters run as fast as the dogs to ensure they are not out of site and entering private lands? There is no guarantee in this. Dogs do not see boundaries, they see the job they need to complete and will continue to pursue. Therefore, caging a wild animal into an enclosed space for training that is not 100% effective does not seem to reap the benefits of these facilities.

Competitions for canned hunting is barbaric and outdated. This shows that this demand for more issued licences is more then just establishing controlled training opportunities, it’s also turning into a sporting event no different then other illegal events that encourages animals to attack or kill one another in an enclosed area.

"If they are in danger, they're in the ground, And I can assure you there's not very many dogs going to go in a 10-inch culvert when there's an alligator at the other end." If the dogs won’t go into the safe spaces for the coyotes, which they’re supposed to be trained to do, then what’s the point of this? They’re not hunting them anyways. This is not a fair chase because dogs will learn where the dens are and loiter around them. In a natural setting the wildlife would have a fair opportunity to escape.

Duck hunters manage to train their duck dogs without penning waterfowl. Putting live animals into a pen is inhumane and torture for the animal.

Fox and coyotes are rabies vectors. What practices will be used to ensure that a rabid animal is not captured, stored into a pen, and ensure they are not transmitting the disease? Will they be quarantined?

Is this practice humane for the dogs? Will they get hurt? Can you guarantee hunters don’t remove teeth from these caged wildlife causing further torture?

There are much bigger issues in this province related to fish and wildlife that this funding needs to be implemented into. More enforcement needs to happen and greater fines need to be implemented for those breaking the law. Focus on the larger issues before creating more.