Re: Draft Policy,…

Re: Draft Policy,

A letter I received dated Feb, 27, 2017, I quote "The intent of the comprehensive review is to minimize the ecological risks associated with the spread of invasive species and disease while providing a viable bait industry and business certainty to operators".

I attended an information session at Kingston. Question after question was never answered directly or properly. There was no recording of the questions and proceedings. Does this mean they weren't interested in our input or they just didn't care? There were about 30 or so harvesters and dealers at this meeting and some of these harvesters have sold bait for 40 to 50 years. They didn't seem to want us to engage or ask questions, Why?, there was a lot of experience and knowledge in that room.

So here it comes! The intent is to minimize "risks". Where would the most invasive species in species numbers exist? Oh that would be the Great Lks, next the St Lawrence, and next would be the Ottawa River. So lets let the bait from the Great Lakes and the Ottawa River to be allowed to move inland as per the new proposal. Sure sounds like a way to jack up the risk level.

"Providing a viable bait industry and business certainty to operators". This sounds good. Hugs and Kisses. During the information session at Kingston when asked a pointed question the information session leader said 'well at least we're not banning baitfish". "It could be worse". "There are many people out there that just want baitfish cancelled in Ontario" I left this session thinking there was less certainty than ever. This cloud never goes away.

At the session there seemed to be no plan for the certainty of the industry.

I presently supply a store at Nogies Creek near Bobcaygeon, the minnow shed actually sits on the road allowance. The road would be the new boundry for Zone E and Zone F. I have supplied this business since 1984. Would I still be able to supply them? To me it seems less "risk" to supply northern baitfish rather than from the Great lakes under the new proposal.

How many baitfish harvesters have been charged with moving invasive species? A few years ago it become law that you have to dump your bait bucket on land not in water. ($340.00 fine) You actually shouldn't be able to use your live wells for baitfish. How can floater buckets be used for bait in Ontario? Do you dry your minnows off before you put them in your floater bucket, your bait bag, pail, holding pen on your dock etc.... This whole regulation needs to be revisited and some things need to be change.

Not allowing tested emerald shiners into Zone C, D, and E doesn't make sense and the winter fishing will suffer greatly. The harvesters in Zone E cannot possibly meet the winter demand and keep their harvests sustainable.

It seems like the purpose of this exercise, "the intent of the review is to minimize the ecological risks associated with the spread of invasive species and disease while providing a viable bait industry and business certainty to operators" dated Feb 27, 2017 is far from being met thru the ecological framework.

As for the personal southern ontario angler harvested bait to the waterbody where it was collected, and the documentation for overland transport in northern ontario zones, where does central ontario fit in?

Thru this whole process there has not been enough input from harvesters and retail outlets.

When the license fees where increased 400% part of the money was to go towards a bait association, and after it folded the license fees didn't decrease, nor a new association or voice implemented.

Pg 2 of Feb 27 letter from MNRF stated in coming months, MNRF will be holding a number of engagement sessions around the province to gather feedback on the proposed policy. Your sessions where information sessions only. No true engagement never happened. There should have been at least one meeting in each zone as zone E had to travel to Sudbury, Kingston or London. Why not Peterborough

[Original Comment ID: 209907]