Thank you for the…

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feed back regarding the proposed black bear hunting regulation.

I fully support

1) the continuation of the spring black bear hunt beyond 2020 for residents and non-residents in all WMU's where there is a fall black bear hunt: I do not have enough data at this time to comment on the Bruce Peninsula situation.

2) the regulation that the harvest of bear cubs and female bears accompanied by a cub(s) remain prohibited:I am thankful that most of my fall hunters respect that rule;

3) that bear licences & tags remain valid for both spring & fall seasons; this is very important for potential returning clients who were not successful in the spring hunt;

4) that the mandatory hunter report deadline for resident bear hunters be one report submission for the year; I believe it will be beneficial for the team who compiles the data;

5) the elimination of special black bear hunting opportunities for non-resident landowners and non-resident immediate relatives of Ontario residents, even though the number of non-resident landowners is low;

6) the requirement for individual and businesses to have a Licence to Provide Black Bear Hunting Services to provide guiding services to residents within a BMA; this is a much needed change; no one wants a confrontation in the woods; it will be a safeguard; otherwise, we will need enforcement and penalties, which is usually complicated;

Additional comments;

1) residents hunters that travel in excess of 40 km should have to indicate where they sought lodging and who baited for them. (After how many km is a person no longer considered a local harvester)

2) The announcement of the adoption of these proposals before the 2020 spring hunt would be welcomed; perhaps a draft.

3) The forest industry and MNRF have a serious impact on tourism. If there is little or no communication especially with respect to RSA's, tourist operators experience difficulties planning a hunt. Some mining and exploration companies have also come up with unpleasant surprises. These companies seem to have no accountability; they lack respect towards the local outfitters. (So far, there has never been any consultation with the local outfitters.)

4) BMA Operators vs Resident Hunters
There is no law to restrict a resident hunter from hunting on or next to an outfitter's BMA' s;the outfitter leases Crown land, but no law protects his rights, whether he's been leasing for 20 years or three years. No one wants a confrontation in the woods

5) Hunting on Private Land
a)It would not be accurate data to have an outfitter report the harvest on private land against his BMA quota. I suggest The Mandatory Hunter Report should also include the township in the WMU in which the harvest occurred.

b)Moreover, if the land does not meet the MNRF criteria of one (1) bear per fifty square km, (example), two or more bears are harvested on that property, over harvesting exists. Any private land, not included in BMA that does not meet the said criteria is therefore allowed the harvest of one (1) bear.

6) Let's compromise.
Consider restricting the first two weeks of the fall hunt to BMA operators (some consideration and respect since there is a fee attached to their BMA's; beginning the third week, residents start to hunt (one fifth of the season would be allocated to the BMA operators.)
For the spring hunt, one third of the season allocated to BMA operators, two first weeks open to residents only, next two weeks to BMA operators only; remainder of season open to everyone.

7) Allocations.
a)vacant BMA's, My CONCERN regarding this is that NO true data is available.
b) non allocated BMA, My CONCERN regarding non allocated BMA's is that NO data is or has been collected since the forestry is developing, new roads are allowing access to non-allocated BMA's, thus allowing harvesting activities; thus, creating a viable & sustainable bear population.
This would create new recreational opportunities--all good for my business & tourist industry.