Am I wishfull thinking, or did I just hear on the radio

[keram]

If the Ministry of Natural Resources is “devoted” to Fishing and Hunting would it not be called the Ministry of Fishing and Hunting? In fact fishing and hunting is part of a much larger portfolio encompassing Forestry, Mining, Land and Water management, Parks and Recreation etc. Look it up and learn something about the department before dismissing Donna Cansfield for not fishing or hunting.

 

Just forget about fishing and hunting. She must be at least an "expert" in other parts of portfolio:

 

Mining - so she knows how to use TNT. Not big deal, lots of people do and they do not brag about it

Forestry - unless she uses axe from CTC I can accept this

Land and Water management - After water level's dropped 2' in Great Lakes we have more land ( taxes) and less water, and this is a good thing!!!

Parks and Recreation - book in two for one campsite, hopefully one has to work ( because just received tax assessment)

 

And this one I like the most

etc - this is all the time available after all the above are taken care off ( 1hr 15min)

 

I'm having fun today, this kind of post does not happen too often

[aniceguy]

well Im going to go on a short limb here, but wont commit to any opinion so far. My meeting is set with the Minister in a few weeks to discuss a lot of relevent fishing related issues. So far every staffer or advisor I have spoken with in her office is willing to listen, learn and become engaged in the topic. I also know she has been criscrossing the entire province meeting with large strakeholders also getting a feel for her new job, so I put a check on that, she is prepared to make sure she understands issues.

 

For what its worth I place a call and its returned promptly same with emails, unlike Ramsey this office is willing to engage 100%

 

DO I have an opinion no not yet, but I will after I meet with her. Cut her some slack or give her enough rope to hang but at the very least do one of the above before formulating adefinative opinion,

[huntervasili]

Great to hear aniceguy... I will be looking forward to both what you and the minister has to say about the issue

[tschirk]

If this is like most Ministries the real power lies with the deputy minister who has been in place for a while and "advises" the minister on most policies...

[Gerritt]

well Im going to go on a short limb here, but wont commit to any opinion so far. My meeting is set with the Minister in a few weeks to discuss a lot of relevent fishing related issues. So far every staffer or advisor I have spoken with in her office is willing to listen, learn and become engaged in the topic. I also know she has been criscrossing the entire province meeting with large strakeholders also getting a feel for her new job, so I put a check on that, she is prepared to make sure she understands issues.

 

For what its worth I place a call and its returned promptly same with emails, unlike Ramsey this office is willing to engage 100%

 

DO I have an opinion no not yet, but I will after I meet with her. Cut her some slack or give her enough rope to hang but at the very least do one of the above before formulating adefinative opinion,

 

 

funny you say that... I have yet to receive a reply... perhaps I was not asking the right Questions? LOL

 

as for the post made by Never Fished.. EVERYONE here knows that the MNR is not just about fishing and hunting... but you are the sole ministry responsible for the Hunting/fishing rules made here in Ontario.. Therefor you are devoted to it...

 

I imagine this is how it went....

 

you Google'd Donna... got some hits.. and guess what we were on of the first few pages....correct?

 

Nice to see OFC grabbing the attention of the Provincial Government!

 

May I ask you a question.. do you have input on policy? what is your role exactly?

 

I mean why else would you be here... on this site (not being a fisherperson) and why would you feel the need to signup? why come here at all?

 

You certainly did not Google fishing...

 

You google'd Donna..

 

Welcome to OFC... I know one other place you might want to drop in on as well...

 

Google OFAH

 

 

Seeing as how you have never fished I wuld love to offer you up a spot in my boat and take you out someday just to show you how much fun it can be... I have but ONE rule... no talking politics on the boat..

 

 

Gerritt.

[JerseyDog]

Don't worry guys, she's a politician and a liberal at that. If it was worth a few votes or a few bucks, she's let y'all shoot every bear and fish out every walleye in the province.

 

Thats the way it goes.

[widge123]

And here I just set out 500 hundred copies of the 2005/2006 regulations book for recycling. Moving too fast I suppose.

[Dano]

Lets get some more co's out there, I see far too many fishing violations per year. I have our "local" co's cell #, but his area is so large its impossible to patrol.

[fishindevil]

Well said gerritt.Hmmmmm...never fished is awefull quiet now ...how come???? they all have no backbone thats why??? come out of hiding...ya i thought so??? i wouldnt want you in my boat ..there might be an accident....i like polititions can you tell

[jjcanoe]

Will you put more CO's out there in the field protecting our resources? Will you make sure they have gas in their trucks to do their jobs? (incase you did not know... They can not afford gas for regular patrols)

 

Never mind that, she, as the Minister of Transport, would like to have all comercial vehicles restricted to a maximum of 105 kph. Does that mean the gold and brown MNR company trucks carrying the CO's can only do 105 to chase down poachers???

 

jjcanoe

Edited November 29, 2007 by jjcanoe

[fish_finder]

If the Ministry of Natural Resources is “devoted” to Fishing and Hunting would it not be called the Ministry of Fishing and Hunting? In fact fishing and hunting is part of a much larger portfolio encompassing Forestry, Mining, Land and Water management, Parks and Recreation etc. Look it up and learn something about the department before dismissing Donna Cansfield for not fishing or hunting.

 

:blahblah1:

 

 

Funny, the MNR, although it isn’t 100% dedicated to fishing and hunting, it decides the regulations imposed on such interests. I guess, with the money stemming from various other sectors of ‘Natural Resources’ the organisation can blatantly disregard the state of our fisheries and wildlife here. Really, what pays more???? A full application and finally taxes for a gravel pit to destroy a forest, or my annual licence to enjoy that forest? Oh yeah….nevermind! Wait…lets allow the ‘ministry of natural resources’ to permit multi-national companies to bottle water here, directly from the sources of our ever so hard to find cold water creeks and rivers….and sell it for twice the price of fuel!

 

Yes….the MNR’s portfolio does extend past fishing and hunting…..Thanks for reminding us, sometimes all it takes is a little refresher once in a while!!

 

PS….I see bears sometimes…they’re everywhere!

 

:asshat:

[JohnF]

funny you say that... I have yet to receive a reply... perhaps I was not asking the right Questions? LOL

 

as for the post made by Never Fished.. EVERYONE here knows that the MNR is not just about fishing and hunting... but you are the sole ministry responsible for the Hunting/fishing rules made here in Ontario.. Therefor you are devoted to it...

<snippage>

Seeing as how you have never fished I wuld love to offer you up a spot in my boat and take you out someday just to show you how much fun it can be... I have but ONE rule... no talking politics on the boat..

Gerritt.

 

Gerritt, you're on the right train but the wrong track. I've had some limited experience with this business of gov't lobbying and the trick isn't just to get in their faces, but to get there with some facts and some clout. No self-respecting pol is going to pay much attention to one solitary voice and can easily excuse it, particularly if the tone is offensive and the demand blatantly self-serving.

 

The pols want something showy that will appeal to the media as a positive step in serving their constituents. It's hard to sweep away a coordinated well thought out presentation from a significant body of informed constituents. First we need to get a read on just how much our own bailiwick really means to the Ministry as a part of the big picture, then determine which other sectors of responsibility are most sympathetic to our cause(s). Here's a very simplistic fer instance - It's important for us to preserve the gamefish species & habitats in Ontario but it isn't enough to demand protection just because a few individuals want to have better sportfishing. With a little research I'm pretty sure we could come up with bigger grander more universally saleable reasons i.e. how sportfishing affects the Province's economy, like the tourist industry, the revenues from the park systems, the employment of guides and outfitters, the commercial fisheries, the peripheral economy in general, environmental protection, species at risk benefits, etc. Then we build a body with a common interest perhaps joining with other existing groups (like our own OFC comprised of some 2,500 or so voices on it's own) and identify the 3 or 4 most critical points we feel need to be addressed with and by the Ministry. The idea is to speak as one voice on a few specifically identified high importance issues with obvious benefits to other sectors and hopefully some attractiveness in the media. That's hard to ignore as a politician.

 

It's surprising how easy it is for my particular professional association to arrange annual concurrent meetings for several hundred of us from across the country at the gov't offices in Ottawa with something like 90 elected officials on one given morning of the year to present our arguments. But we go into these meetings with the same presentation to each mp, not a bunch of individual me me me type demands. We get heard and we get results. Sometimes we get a frank "We can't do that now." and that means we go to the other points. If there's any wiggle room we get action because we do it as an informed body with a common cause.

 

I don't know if fishermen and/or hunters in Ontario have the collective will to build this kind of lobbying effort, or if it's already being done, but if not, one need only look at the NRA in the States to appreciate the power that's there to be harnessed and used. We can't muster the millions of voices the NRA has but we need more than a bunch of individual voices each crying out for a different cause.

 

Right off the bat here's a question for any of you who are interested -

What are the three most important issues facing sport fishing today in Ontario?

 

And if you want to go a step further, are they issues that apply to other sectors of the economy as well?

 

Sorry if I come across like a pontifcating boob but I've seen this lobbying game in action

JF

[aniceguy]

Good post John,

 

As one of the larger F& W lobbyists at Queens Park, there most certainly is a very specific method to getting things done. Again I had a long talk today with the ministers Policy advisor on Fish and WIldlife, her and I booked out 2 hours next week to talk shop, and I ll tell you I have had many meetings that ran 2 hrs but its rare to get a senior policy person to actually book out that time up front, so they want to listen and get things fixed.

 

The minister has 2 briefings from my group that we will more then likely discuss and see where it goes. Like I said Im not going on a limb at this point but I will say Im liking what Im hearing and how things initially are shaping up

 

those that know me in person and not as an internet persona know I ll tell it like it is, and like I said earlier enough rope to hang from or pick up the slack to get it done

[bbog]

Is Cansfield listening to the concerns of Northerners over the spring bear hunt? 'nuff said!

[irishfield]

Hope she's buying lunch Louis !

[graftongal]

Never mind that, she, as the Minister of Transport, would like to have all comercial vehicles restricted to a maximum of 105 kph. Does that mean the gold and brown MNR company trucks carrying the CO's can only do 105 to chase down poachers???

 

jjcanoe

 

This topic gets my blood boiling. This was a completely absent minded decision on her part. Did she bother to ask owner-operators what their thoughts were on the matter? No, she took the advice of trucking companies with their own interests in mind, and I'm sure they weren't concerned with safety or environmental issues. The trucking industry is facing serious problems due to an extreme shortage of experienced and qualified drivers. This bullcrap isn't going to help that any. Truck drivers are the safest drivers on our roads. If anyone should have limiters imposed it should be on passenger vehicles, I'm sure the stats will show that they are the ones causing the majority of accidents on our highways.

 

I'm done ranting now!

[luv2drift]

The whole thing is just one big "dog and pony show". Typical strategic chess move by the government to put someone in that position that knows nothing. Just like the minister of Native affairs. THe guy has never met an Native until he was appointed to that position.

 

There is NO money for the enviroment and there is NO money for fishing/hunting and the MNR.

Everything is on a shoe string budget!

 

Important topics that take over everything.....Child Care, Health Care, and More Immigration, Oil etc. these are the things that will continue to take precident until we oust Liberterian type ideas.

Get rid of the high tax in this country let there be a two tiered health care system, Have a medicore child care system, make people take care of their own kids not the government, Correct Immigration and get the deliquents out of here , you do a crime and your deported end of story....

I work and you don't sooooo sad. I get health care and you get the B rated hospital. THat's the way its got to be. Until that happens in my opinion there will be only money spent on the those key election topics!

 

and than we can have some money and resources for FISHING BOWS and Hunting BEARS!!!

 

I am done that's my rant.

[fish_finder]

...

Right off the bat here's a question for any of you who are interested -

What are the three most important issues facing sport fishing today in Ontario?

 

And if you want to go a step further, are they issues that apply to other sectors of the economy as well?

 

Sorry if I come across like a pontifcating boob but I've seen this lobbying game in action

JF

 

1. Water Quality

2. Climate Change

3. Enforcement

 

Not necessarily in that order, however I believe these to be the number 1 issues affecting sportfishing and beyond.

 

Dave

[Kirk]

I think before posting here on this thread, folks should start off with which party they voted for LOL

 

If you ordered dollar store weiners...don't complain about not having roast beef when the weiners are served to you and don't think that tough questions and meetings will change a weiner into roast beef.

 

If you don't like wiener #1 chances are weiner #2 will not be much different

 

Yours truly,

Conservative party member

Edited November 29, 2007 by Kirk

[fishdawg]

well said Kirk!

[irishfield]

You got that right Kirk...and they, the MNR, have found at least one way to cover some of their costs (make that job justification) that I've just found out about unfortunately. They use to sell the land owner, of "Patent land", the shore allowance in front of their cottage/property for a one time fee of $850 to simply do the paperwork to close the allowance. I just found out that as of this year it's now done at "fair market value" and it's gonna cost me $35,000 if I want mine up North. If I had of known this last year... only $850! Guess they're hoping they get 2 a year per district to pay a salary!

[JohnF]

1. Water Quality

2. Climate Change

3. Enforcement

 

Not necessarily in that order, however I believe these to be the number 1 issues affecting sportfishing and beyond.

 

Dave

 

Right idea. I just did some surfing and found the OFAH site (joined up too BTW).

http://www.ofah.org/index.cfm

If you go there click the "Burning Issues" tab top right and you'll see what they're lobbying for at the moment. I suspect these have been identified through discussions initiated in forums similar to this one and have been selected as the focus points that combine best saleability with optimal returns for the hunter/fisher types. It's a case of picking yer battles. Pick yer battle, gather yer facts, decide who is best to present the arguments, decide who is best to hear the arguments, and then take yer best shot. If there's solidarity, support & the right people saying the right things to the right pols, good stuff usually happens.

 

If we collectively agree with these points then perhaps there's something we can do as a group to help support the cause. It occurs to me that as I'm new to this forum and to fishing generally I may be gilding the lily here (perhaps this has all been addressed and dealt with long ago) so my apologies if I'm being redundant. Perhaps I should just shut up till I know more of what's really going on, huh?

 

JF

[JohnF]

I think before posting here on this thread, folks should start off with which party they voted for LOL

 

If you ordered dollar store weiners...don't complain about not having roast beef when the weiners are served to you and don't think that tough questions and meetings will change a weiner into roast beef.

 

If you don't like wiener #1 chances are weiner #2 will not be much different

 

Yours truly,

Conservative party member

 

You're making the assumption there is some "roast beef" representation. There are them what would argue you've only got "weiners" to choose from regardless of the packaging. And before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I'm slagging politicians, perish the thought. It's just that even the best parties & pols get jammed thru so many grinders that there's only one product that can come out the other end - and it sure ain't prime rib. I think it's more a matter of how you prepare the weiners that determines just how satisfied you'll be with the meal.

 

JF

[Roy]

"Perhaps I should just shut up till I know more of what's really going on, huh?"

 

No John. From what I've read so far, you are leagues ahead of anyone I know on this board. I'd hire you as my/our representative anytime.

[JohnF]

"Perhaps I should just shut up till I know more of what's really going on, huh?"

 

No John. From what I've read so far, you are leagues ahead of anyone I know on this board. I'd hire you as my/our representative anytime.

 

Thanks Roy. How's the pay?

 

And not leagues ahead by any stretch of the imagination. Not even ahead, perhaps just better informed for the moment, which is an easy fix. In between my silly posts (for want of any good fishing stories) I pay attention to what others post here. My take without actually meeting anyone yet face to face is that there are some pretty astute individuals in our midst, winners and/or leaders. No names though. They'll all get swelled heads.

 

One of the advantages(???) of doing what I do in real life is that you get to talk much of the time about important stuff and need to have a smattering of knowledge on almost everything under the sun (well - the Canadian sun anyway). Through my involvement as president of our local board I was drug into the PAC side of things kicking & screaming all the way, but I found I actually liked it, in no small part because we have a great federal PAC program and a staff to steer it. No single citizen can accomplish much in the political forum without some substantial support, a worthwhile cause & a great plan. Groups like OFC are a wonderful resource that too often lies untapped. We possess a valuable commodity here - a loud voice, some 2,500+ strong. But we need to act like a choir, not an unruly crowd, to get the best sound. How's that for a sick-making analogy?

 

JF