Ontario Bait Policy Review public comment period

[j.klister 24]

36 minutes ago, Resource Pimp said:

How are people over 65 who do not need an outdoor card or fishing license dealt with regarding their choice of BMZ ?

 

 

Defaults to the BMZ of your home address on your Driver's License, which you have to produce to prove you are over 65.  If they want to change, they have to buy license.  Paying for part of your licensing if you are a senior also isn't unheard of.  In Alberta, for example, there is no cost for a sportfishing license for residents over 65, but they do have to pay for a special walleye license that you get if you are successful in the walleye fishing draw (yes, there is a walleye draw in Alberta, in case you weren't aware about how lucky you are to be living here, lol).

 

http://www.mywildalberta.com/BuyLicences/FishingLicensesFees/documents/WalleyeDrawsBrochure-2016.pdf

 

That would be my suggestion on how to implement it.  Eventually, I can see that the free fishing over 65 is going to go away as well.   That won't happen until people like me (aged 40) are over 65, because there will no longer be enough of us remaining in that age bracket like there is with the boomers today to affect the election results. 

[Resource Pimp 60]

11 minutes ago, j.klister said:

 

Defaults to the BMZ of your home address on your Driver's License, which you have to produce to prove you are over 65.  If they want to change, they have to buy license.  Paying for part of your licensing if you are a senior also isn't unheard of.  In Alberta, for example, there is no cost for a sportfishing license for residents over 65, but they do have to pay for a special walleye license that you get if you are successful in the walleye fishing draw (yes, there is a walleye draw in Alberta, in case you weren't aware about how lucky you are to be living here, lol).

 

http://www.mywildalberta.com/BuyLicences/FishingLicensesFees/documents/WalleyeDrawsBrochure-2016.pdf

 

That would be my suggestion on how to implement it.  Eventually, I can see that the free fishing over 65 is going to go away as well.   That won't happen until people like me (aged 40) are over 65, because there will no longer be enough of us remaining in that age bracket like there is with the boomers today to affect the election results. 

Thanks for the answers. Are you answering under the authority of MNRF so that information gotten from you can be used to compile my response to the environmental registry ?

[j.klister 24]

 

33 minutes ago, Resource Pimp said:

Thanks for the answers. Are you answering under the authority of MNRF so that information gotten from you can be used to compile my response to the environmental registry ?

 

No, I am not an employee of that organization, and nothing I say should be construed as any sort of official policy on their part.

 

In fact. my ideas are so good and it took me so little time to come up with them, that I think I should have charged myself out as a 1000$ a day consultant, but through the goodness of my heart, I am giving them these ideas for free, all they have to do is read Thunder Bay Fishing, lol.

 

But seriosuly, I am just a citizen of this province like you, with a sort of similar day job as the people who write these kinds of policy pieces, at which I am clearly bored today.  

 

I do have some experience however with reading submissions from public consultations in a completely different context than this one.  My suggestion would be to try not to sound angry or confrontational.  That's usually a recipe for immediately getting ignored.

 

[mad scientist 140]

23 hours ago, Resource Pimp said:

Mad Scientist, if you're unable to answer a question, who does one contact to get an answer and clarification before submitting to the environmental registry?

 

Call the local MNR office; if they can't help you, the ER posting says "For more information, please contact bait@ontario.ca "

 

[Some Old Guy 968]

Guilty. I got hot under the collar. 

 

Roger

[uncle 19]

On ‎01‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 0:18 PM, NWO said:

 

 

There is a perception that all the decisions have been made and "public input" is a necessary evil that policy makers are forced to go through.

 

The perception is that the cake has been baked already.

I agree, but I certainly don't like all the hoops they are putting up.  Next time you're talking to a CO ask him how minnows get into small land locked lakes and how they are going to stop it. 

[tracker 61]

Just had a thought driving home from the lake yesterday with my 5 gallon bucket with my left over minnows. I normally purchase small suckers a dozen at a time as through the winter I fish by myself. Hypothetically under the proposed regulation, if you purchased a dozen minnows and if you are a poor fisherman like me, you only used 4 of them. The next weekend you purchase another dozen and use 8. The next weekend you purchase another dozen. Now you have receipts for 3 dozen minnows which only two of them would be non expired, so you can legally have 2 dozen in your possession. if you repeat this cycle, you could possibly have minnows from your original purchase. Unless the CO asks you to identify which ones are the most current????  

[Blackfootbaits 53]

On 3/1/2017 at 0:01 PM, arvey said:

The bait business can be a lucrative one , if you harvest your own and retail them the government doesn't know how much you have trapped or how much you are claiming you sold. Now with receipts the tax will have to be shown . Don't get me wrong i'm not for this once I pay for my bait I don't care what you do or how much you claim that's your business. Like what was said earlier the MNR wants to know were your buying your bait from . The tax man wants to know how much bait you are really selling.

Contrary to your belief, we have to submit to the MNRF, a bait harvest and sale report at the end of each year.  As for not paying or collecting sales tax, it might have been a practice of bait dealers many years ago, but i believe that practice is all but history now.  We have used a cash register since day one and will always use one.

[offroader 49]

These bureaurats are clearly intent  of over-regulating this resource into total obscurity. Pity the next generation(s) who have to wade through and comply with all the BS-- just to spend a day out on the lake with family.   😧

[arvey 154]

I can see a cash grab here , i'll bet if your going to need a license and a log book that will purchased from them.

I think what they're coming up with is another unenforceable law and a receipt is not going to stop people from sneaking bait across the border or anywhere else. I understand the fear of spreading v.h.s. which by looking it up pertains to Southern Ontario and a changing of regs. for them I can see . Are situation here in Northwestern Ontario is far different.  As for zones that I can understand but killing your bait after 2 weeks only means back to the bait store and more tax dollars for them. Very little is done by governments without the benefit of votes or money being involved , the cancellation of the bear hunt and many other things have proven that. Also you don't know what anti group could be behind this , remember antis don't care how many jobs are lost how much money is lost or what effect their push will cost the country or province . Their main goal is to win no matter what in fact you don't know how many will write in to the MNRF on this subject.

[mad scientist 140]

3 hours ago, arvey said:

Also you don't know what anti group could be behind this , 

 

The strategic bait policy proposal was developed with the cooperation of a provincial Bait Review Advisory Group (BRAG).

 

BRAG was comprised of the following:

1. Trout Unlimited Canada (TU)

2. Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH)

3. Algonquin Eco Watch

4. Wildlife Conservation Society Canada (WCS)

5. Anishinabek/Ontario Fisheries Resource Centre (A/OFRC) and Indigenous commercial bait harvester

6. Nature and Outdoor Tourism Ontario (NOTO)

7. Commercial Bait Industry  (six commercial bait licence holders from across the province, including harvesters, dealers and tourist outfitters)

 

The Commercial Bait Industry representation included a major harvester from Northwestern Ontario.  Appendix A of the document (beginning page 31) describes the input that BRAG had to the development and review of the strategic policy.

[Blackfootbaits 53]

Unfortunately there was no representation from the District of Thunder Bay.

[arvey 154]

On ‎3‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 3:32 PM, mad scientist said:

 

The strategic bait policy proposal was developed with the cooperation of a provincial Bait Review Advisory Group (BRAG).

 

BRAG was comprised of the following:

1. Trout Unlimited Canada (TU)

2. Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH)

3. Algonquin Eco Watch

4. Wildlife Conservation Society Canada (WCS)

5. Anishinabek/Ontario Fisheries Resource Centre (A/OFRC) and Indigenous commercial bait harvester

6. Nature and Outdoor Tourism Ontario (NOTO)

7. Commercial Bait Industry  (six commercial bait licence holders from across the province, including harvesters, dealers and tourist outfitters)

 

The Commercial Bait Industry representation included a major harvester from Northwestern Ontario.  Appendix A of the document (beginning page 31) describes the input that BRAG had to the development and review of the strategic policy.

 Sorry I should have made myself more clear when I mentioned antis. What I meant was that you don't know if some group put the bug in the governments ear ( like S.H.A.D. did with the bear hunt ) who intern turned to the M.N.R.F. who approached B.R.AG to help with this review. I'm not highly educated like yourself so I can only assume this was the pecking order and i'm sure you'll correct me if i'm wrong.

[mad scientist 140]

17 minutes ago, arvey said:

 you don't know if some group put the bug in the governments ear 

I don't know from whom the bait policy review originated, but I do know that the impetus was principally about non-native and invasive species, not  the anti-fishing lobby.