Wow. This is out right ignorant!

[Roger 0]

This is what it comes down to now.

 

How to find out where someone fishes.

 

What do you guys think about this?

 

Roger

[RickS 19]

This does seem like an extreme way to get at the information, but the angler is the one who decided to publicly post video of his success and I'm not sure that the requested information should be kept secret if it really did involve obtaining Provincial or Federal access permits.  I realize the Ontario's Freedom of Information Act may be different, but under the USA's Freedom of Information Act, federal agencies are required to release information unless its release qualifies for withholding based on several possible exemptions.  If a FOIA request comes in that is overly broad (e.g., all camping permits issued in Algonquin Park in 2015), agencies often ask the requestor to narrow the scope of their request.  They often do this to deter "fishing expeditions" (sorry but I couldn't resist) that might prove costly to the agency or the requestor (under the USA's FOIA, agencies can charge the requestor for copying costs unless a fee waiver is sought and granted).  I can't think of any USA FOIA exemptions that would apply to this situation unless there is specific language in the permitting law that prohibits the release of information contained in the permits.  In the USA, if the permit(s) were released they would black-out any personally identifiable information such as address or birthdate of the permittee.

 

When I worked for the US Fish & Wildlife Service, we used to have a somewhat similar issue/concern about site-specific information on endangered species.  Many of the State fish and wildlife agencies were reluctant to share information about species with us over fear that we would not be able to withhold that information if someone submitted a FOIA request to us.  In some situations we were able to work around the issue if the State agency that had the information sold it to us; then we could then say that release of the information was exempt because the information was confidential commercial information that the requestor could seek to purchase from the State.

[j.klister 24]

Ha! What an interesting situation.  They are unlikely to give this one specific guys camping permit because it has his name on it which I believe would be protected under privacy legislation.  However, I don't believe there is anything to protect asking for an anonymized list of number of camping permits issued per lake in Algonquin Park in April or May 2017, for example.  With that info it wouldnt be too hard to find the ones with fewest permits issued. In fact that has a totally legitimate purpose like trying to find the least busy lakes for planning a canoe trip.

[levi64 72]

The minute you decide to post video to u tube or any other public site things can happen and apparently they did.

[AB 98]

12 hours ago, levi64 said:

The minute you decide to post video to u tube or any other public site things can happen and apparently they did.

 

Levi I agree with you 100%.

 

If you listened to the interview on CBC Radio last week, Mike Borger, the angler who made and published the video claimed he had turned down the requests of over a hundred people who have contacted him since the posting to try and get information regarding the location of the lake in Algonquin Park. He won't give it up. (don't blame him for that). Lets remember that he has a guiding business and for him this is video (which is on his website) self promotion.

 

Making a video is wonderful means to preserve memories. Posting it on the internet is now going to provide Mr. Borger with an unpleasant memory.

 

The real victims in all of this are all the other anglers who have known about this little gem in Algonquin Park and have kept that knowledge from the masses surfing the internet.

 

Loose lips make for crowded launch areas!

 

AB

[Some Old Guy 968]

I guess it is the guys fault. No worse than some guys using a set of binoculars on the top teams while prefishing a tournament, I guess. 

 

Roger 

[RickS 19]

So does anyone know if the information was actually released by the Ministry?  The link provided in the original post states that the Ministry declined to release the information.  I give credit to the requestor for pointing out a potential weak link in the system but if the information was not released then this seems like a "no harm-- no foul" situation.

[j.klister 24]

I am 99% sure that it has not been released yet.  I am guessing that the letter that he got in that picture simply informs him of the fact that a request for information containing his personal information has been received under a freedom of information act request, and gives him the opportunity to  provide a response to the request (either with or without assitance of a lawyer, depending on how serious he wants to take it), which will eventually be used when the request is considered by the information and privacy commissioner (https://www.ipc.on.ca/).  

 

I am also 99% sure that when this does get to that point, the request will be denied because the camping permit contains the guys name, which as far as I understand it, is protected information under privacy legislation, and it will be considered not of sufficient public interest to release the details of this particular camping permit (however, asking for the release of aggregated, anonmyized camping permit information might not be denied).  This kind of information associated with peoples names CAN be released, if it is deemed to be of sufficient public interest (for example, the names and salaries of all the cops and teachers who earn more than 100K every year are on the sunshine list for this reason). If the information does get released, he will have a second chance to request a "judicial review" of the decision, but it won't get to that point.  

 

Not a lawyer, but know someone who has gone through this in a different context. 

[Bobber Down 921]

It certainly was an interesting way to try and find Mike's secret spot. Some ppl will go to Extremes to find a fishing spot. Even more so when Brook Trout are involved and even more so again when it's only a short drive from the GTA. Remember the commotion that was caused on this site when ppl talked about and posted pics that revealed Rainbow/Steelhead spots. Even I get hate when I post Walleye pics or start a thread which contains or shows locations. The following is from Mike himself about the situation.

 

(Quote) I'm primarily upset for three reasons. 1. Because the MNR has wasted an insane amount of manpower over something that should have been an easy cut and dried decision. 2. Because of what this unknown person did to unearth the info - it's low. and 3. Because the potential ramifications of the MNR's decision were far reaching with a potential negative impact on a great many people.

I have said I'm worried about the lake, but I'm really not. I have said this before publicly elsewhere so this is not new info. The truth is even if my camping permit were released to anyone, including the MNR themselves, some of whom enjoy fishing, it's highly unlikely anyone could figure out where I caught the fish and here's why.

Does anyone who knows ANYTHING about Algonquin Park and brook trout in general believe for one second that fish of that caliber exist on a lake that's part of a documented route with designated campsites on it??

YES I did catch some decent fish on a couple of the lakes I camped on, anyone who watched the video will see that. But the truly huge fish?? Nope.

In Algonquin you can ONLY camp on designated campsites. There are countless small lakes not part of any route, lakes that virtually no one fishes. Some of those lakes have incredible fishing for that reason. No, you're not allowed to camp on those lakes, but you can portage in and fish them on a day trip.

That's exactly what I did. So all the people who "think" they know the identity of the lake can pound salt. I'm not an idiot.

The MNR knew nothing of this when they drafted the initial 5 page letter to me, and I have yet to tell them. I never will! The big issue for me was the potential invasion of privacy for me now and others in the future, and the simple fact our MNR was acting stupidly. (unquote)

 

I'm sure Mike will continue to make his video's. They are very well done and interesting to watch. Maybe a little more editing will be in future editions but like J.klister stated above "If the information does get released, he will have a second chance to request a "judicial review" of the decision, but it won't get to that point".

[RickS 19]

A lot would probably depend on exactly what the requestor asked for too.  If he asked for copies of all permits issued to Mr. Borger (or any other specific individual), copies of the permits would probably be released in the USA but the personal information, like name/address/etc. would be redacted. This probably reflects differences in how the laws and regulations are written in the USA vs. Canada/Ontario.  In the USA, agencies often avoid responding to this type of request by requiring the requestor to pay for the staff time spent on conducting the search and copying the records.  Requestors can ask for a fee waiver but they have to explain how the information will be used to the public's benefit (which I think would be difficult in this situation unless you think revealing the location of a trophy brook trout lake so that it can be quickly fished out is good for the public).

 

Also not a lawyer, but used to respond to FOIA requests as part of my job.

[Domer 103]

I heard it was actually loftquist lake. 

See y'all there

[arvey 154]

On ‎8‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 10:19 AM, Roger Mayer said:

I guess it is the guys fault. No worse than a set of binoculars while prefishing a tournament, I guess. 

 

Roger 

You also have some anglers that don't put an effort into prefishing and would rather follow previous winners around the lake. This subject is a clear cut case of anglers not wanting to do their own leg work and find the fish themselves.