ERO review and comments To…

ERO review and comments
To proceed with a points based tag allocation system, the preference points totals must be viewable online every year (personal account) well in advance of the draw deadline. Past statistics to be maintained and published by MNRF, as before by WMU and sex.

I am extremely concerned that MNRF will set $ values on tags without the amount known in advance to the public, and how increases will be regulated in the future. The ability to hunt moose shouldn’t come down to those that can afford high fees. This is discriminatory against those of lower socioeconomic status and certainly doesn’t make tag allocation fairer. Stating that over a moose hunter’s career this will cost less, assumes people have the ability to stretch out increases over multiple years. To some people a single time expense of $200 (or likely much more) is absolutely not attainable.

All proposed changes for moose management must be supported through evidence based decision making. Manipulating multiple parameters won’t reveal a true understanding of how each proposed change affected, positively or negatively, the outcome. Changes cannot be individually analyzed for their impact when imposed en masse. Ensure that data continues to be collected through aerial surveys and staff in the field and don’t just rely on mandatory reporting. However if hunters don’t report, make the penalty severe such as not permitting them to hunt the following year.

I strongly oppose the proposals for more restrictive party hunting rules. Providing additional hunting opportunities (i.e. more available tags) through the reduction of hunter success rates is an exercise with smoke and mirrors. This creates an illusion to make hunters happy with receiving a tag, although their success rate will drop, achieving the same harvest numbers. Economic consequences will not be neutral or positive. Increased hunting ‘opportunities’ with even lower success rates will lead to a reduction in hunter numbers. Initially hunters may be receptive to this process, but as the true effects of the restrictions are realized (less success), numbers of hunters will continue or even accelerate in their decline as is the pattern now – review your own statistics. With the loss of hunters and associated reduction in licencing fee income, where will the money come from to continue with big game management?

I strongly oppose the proposed reduction in hunting party distance from 5 km to 3 km. I consider this a safety issue, potentially jamming more hunters in a smaller area while participating in a coordinated hunt. This will also present a huge challenge to the conservation officers in the field trying to monitor and enforce an unnecessary restriction. I anticipate an increase in charges to hunters, time before the courts and expenses the government will incur in enforcement and prosecution of an unnecessary restriction. How will that possibly contribute to improved moose management?

I strongly oppose the proposed party hunting size restrictions to a maximum of 10 members, or indeed any restriction. Through MNRF moose management efforts over the last decade or so, our family and friends have worked with the system dictated to us, and we have evolved our efforts into larger groups that participate in party hunting. I hunt with my wife, my children, aunts, uncles and cousins, not ‘ghost hunters’. Our party easily reaches 10 – do I now have to insist that some family members can’t hunt with us anymore? My two oldest children are apprentice hunters – they will be mentored by us and share our firearms, but do they now count as numbers in the party? My third child will be an apprentice hunter next year, so potentially 6 members of our max group of 10 will have only 3 firearms and cover that much less territory. How is that fair to this next generation of hunters, further restricting their ability to be mentored and possibly harvest an animal? Without future hunters, the system cannot continue to be sustainably managed, unless the government’s goal is in fact to eventually eliminate a moose harvest completely. Leave hunting party numbers as they are, don’t create another nightmare for the conservation officers to monitor and enforce.

Further with my opposition to a maximum party size, there are additional considerations that aren’t made clear:
o are the maximum 10 persons to be identified ahead of the tag allocation process?
o are only those EXACT 10 persons able to hunt on that tag? So I have to choose my family members or friends to hunt with ahead of the season and can’t deviate from that plan?

Do not consider any further restrictions beyond manipulating the tag numbers as traditionally has been done, and perhaps continuing to limit the calf hunt through the season or introduction of tags, but not restricting adult hunts further in any manner.

I strongly oppose any reduction in the hunting season length or the prohibition of using all-terrain vehicles. Their use should not be restricted to just game retrieval. Access to many areas is not possible without an all-terrain vehicle, further restricting the areas available for hunting and potentially placing even more hunters in close proximity to each other.