Your thoughts on the resource

[muskymatt]

Matt, VHS, gobies, zebra mussels and cormorants have been around long, long before 2004....where did you get your info? And how do you quantify the damage done by those invasive species? Do you have a study or report? Besides how is regulating anglers going to prevent diseases like VHS and invasive species like gobies, zebra mussels and cormorants? Regulating anglers is a bandaid solution to a bigger problem (ie. ships dumping ballast in the Great Lakes). Why not tackle the real problem and have an area where foreign ships can safely dump ballast BEFORE entering the Seaway as Marc suggested. Why allow them to dump and then take it out on anglers thru restrictive regs?

You will have to take that up with the biologists who made those claims. Matt, it seems you only want to agree with them when they support your position.

Matt, I don't understand, on one hand you agree that our fisheries are stable and sustainable....and yet you are also claiming that the "resource is in need of as much help as possible." Can you please be more specific (maybe a study or report backing your statement) with what has happened in the three open seasons that have occurred since Nov. 2004 that have wreaked havoc on our resource. Pointing out a few waterbodies that have had problems (LSC and the Larry) is not representative of the resource in whole and does not mean that those fisheries have been ruined beyond recovery. Nature has a funny way of balancing things out. If you still feel that anglers are somehow responsible for problems on the Larry, maybe consider the 6 large muskies harvested from the St. Lawrence in the past 4 years by your fellow members. I've got no problem with someone keeping a fish of a lifetime, but don't you think it's hypocritical for a group that is fanatical about promoting C&R to others, to bag six large specimens from a single waterbody that's already been hit with VHS.

Again Matt, you're claiming that you will listen to scientists and biologists yet it seems you are only willing to listen to them when they support your position.

 

I'm not going to argue with you Chris. It obvious your opinion on certain topics, mine differs.

 

The invasive species have been around longer , yes, but it took time for them to grab hold of the fisheries and show their real potential for damage if not kept in check.

 

Regulating ballast dumping is a hugh problem I agree , but not the only problem.

Marc didn't suggest it, people have been screaming about it for a while, he just repeated it.

 

(Matt, I don't understand, on one hand you agree that our fisheries are stable and sustainable....and yet you are also claiming that the "resource is in need of as much help as possible." Can you please be more specific )

 

I don't see how I can be more specific than that!!! It's not doing too bad but still needs attention! What's wrong with that statement???

 

I never said anglers are the problem....you did...I believe anglers can make some difference though.

 

Regulations play but a small role Chris. Loss of habitat,pollution,invasive species(aquatic and plantlife),destruction of habitat,global warming,over harvesting all play their rolls in nature. Each one is responsible for certain problems and all together they create a hugh problem.

Can you disagree with that?

[douG]

Thoughts on the resource? You might generate a more helpful discussion with a defined topic.

Whatchoo talkin bout Willis?

[snag]

I think there are groups with a lot of diverse motivations, and all these make it hard to make the "right" decision.

 

I am leaning towards believing the biologist, and from the few research reports I have read, they seem to be generally in favour of reducing limits, implementing slot sizes, and shortening seasons. But then again, bureaucrats have had hidden agendas in the past, using their expert knowledge to justify their budgets, so this has to be taken into account. Are they not totally unbiased in their findings, and are subconsciously (ie. unknowingly) trying to inflate their budget and power?

 

Animal rights groups may want to slowly reduce fishing over a long time in a manner that is barely noticeable at first, until it gradually becomes almost non-existent. Have their lobbying efforts somehow affected the reg's?

 

And I will probably take a lot of flak for this, but we as fishing folk form another stakeholding group. Some of us lobby either directly or indirectly through member associations. Some of us have motivations that might not be "best". Having the best fishery (eg. heavy stocking, trophies of one species at the detriment of the ecology) does not always mean having the best reg's. For example, I enjoy going carp fishing (but I rarely have the time to do). But if the general consensus amongst scientists was Canada should have no more carp, then I would gladly support their extermination and never catch another carp again. Same could be said for stocked salmon or trout, which I also enjoy catching. I don't believe that a body of water with great fishing with lots of big muskies, walleye, bass, or any other species stands on its own as proof of a healthy ecosystem. My enjoyment from fishing, be it C&R or eating, should always be secondary to the general health of the system.

 

I think the real test is what is best for ecology and the environment. So in my own personal opinion, I tend to favour allowing sports fishing for all, so I believe in keeping license costs low and support initiatives like Family Fishing weekends. But to counterbalance this universal allowance to fish, I also would bet that restricting limits, slot sizes, and certain seasons is the way to go. I agree fishing is not necessary for survival, but also think the occasional meal is part of our heritage. I wouldn't mind in the least if policies such as walleye limit of 2 with a slot, zero possession of musky, or laker limit of 1 with a slot was implemented.

 

Very, very well said.

 

I hope others re-read your post.

[Marc Thorpe]

fishinggeek,I agree with Snag,point very well said and brought up

Rick makes a good point,enforcement is lacking tremendously

Possibly by increasing fines so they be an example other than just being a slap on the hand

For example,the use of extra 1 rod runs around 80$ in fines and double every time there after the angler is again.Possibly increasing the fines to 1000$ per angler in the boat plus 200$ for the extra rod seing as all people in the boat should be aware of the infraction,it would increase income and decrease this viral behavior.Same could be done with many other regular infractions committed

 

In concerns to bilging the ballast of ship,every province and state surrounding the great lakes should pressure the Feds in approving a system of cleaning and bilging

Many complain,I have yet to see any work shop or tabled solution from withing the folks I communicate with both at provincial levels or federal levels,they are all aware of the prob but have no project nor solution work shops in order to halt this problem at the very front line as the ships enter the St Lawrence before entering fresh water

[muskymatt]

fishinggeek,I agree with Snag,point very well said and brought up

Rick makes a good point,enforcement is lacking tremendously

Possibly by increasing fines so they be an example other than just being a slap on the hand

For example,the use of extra 1 rod runs around 80$ in fines and double every time there after the angler is again.Possibly increasing the fines to 1000$ per angler in the boat plus 200$ for the extra rod seing as all people in the boat should be aware of the infraction,it would increase income and decrease this viral behavior.Same could be done with many other regular infractions committed

 

In concerns to bilging the ballast of ship,every province and state surrounding the great lakes should pressure the Feds in approving a system of cleaning and bilging

Many complain,I have yet to see any work shop or tabled solution from withing the folks I communicate with both at provincial levels or federal levels,they are all aware of the prob but have no project nor solution work shops in order to halt this problem at the very front line as the ships enter the St Lawrence before entering fresh water

 

To add to marcs comments....

 

I believe that Canada is the only country without laws regulating the location of dumping. Without these regs the ships can dump anywhere in the inland system as opposed to 1oo km from the mouth of the St.Lawrence out in the Ocean.

 

Makes sense to dump in the ocean because salt water has much more of an ability to cleanse and filter itself and freshwater species will not survive in the ocean waters.

Problem easily solved...right?

 

So why aren't they doing it??

 

Politics? Money? Who knows .

 

But with over 2400 members OFC has the ability to put tens of thoousands of names on a petition and as the leading fishing board in the region may get somebody to listen.

 

My 2 cents..

 

I believe it would be worth a try

[Chris]

That's actually a good idea Matt. The only thing I would add to it would be to get as much info (not opinion) as we can on the subject and post it hear on the board so that we can all make an informed decision. To me, this is much better than eroding fishing rights with restrictions on bait etc.

 

Someone else brought up a survey with our fishing license. This could also be a great tool for getting MNR/anglers informed feedback. With each license application, there could be a small report on the status of our fisheries (or a particular fishery) along with a questionare to be filled out by the angler. This would be very helpful in determining how many anglers are actually pounding the water every year.....and for what species, etc. The possibilities are endless.

 

I would like to see the size limits, possession limits and gear restrictions left alone across the board. Then if a problem arises on a particular waterbody, temporary restrictions can be implemented to assist in the rehab of that waterbody. This way fishing rights are not being eroded, only temporarily adjusted.

 

The idea of higher fines is also a good idea. Not only would it make some of the scofflaws think twice, it could maybe fund a few more tanks of gas for the CO's. I agree 100% with the idea that we need more enforcement of the existing regs. That alone would help the fishery significantly. We do not need more unenforceable regs that in reality equate to eroded fishing rights.

 

We all want the best fishery possible, but we have to temper that with wanting to have the best opportunities to enjoy the fishery

as well.

 

[fishinggeek]

With respect to enforcement, I agree with eveyrone here as well as our provincial auditor general that the MNR has not been effectively enforcing the reg's. I also agree with increasing the penalties, like higher fines and more convictions with jail time served. But correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought all fines were paid to the provincial treasurer and not the MNR. If that is the case, any extra fine revenue will likely not go to more CO's, but might still deter poaching from the would-be poacher.

 

It's so frustrating when there really is so little incentive to follow the rules. A poacher will likely never get caught, and even if he does, might be found not guilty or face only a small fine at best. I'm sure most of us have seen poaching, many have reported it (including myself), and hardly any of us saw any real action from our efforts. I guess it really shows how "stand up" about our natural resources us law-abiding fishermen on OFC are.

[cisco]

High school and grade school pupils need proper education on Ontario flora and fauna along with lessons on relevent rules like the fishing regs. Then as students learn their parents then learn through them. Min of Education must be forced to work as a better teammate with MNR under Premier's edict or something to develop lesson plans accordingly. Presently our kids are taught about environmental issues going on 'over there' someplace... instead of being taught about Ontario, the here and now. Such education is badly needed to curb the ignorance and rule breaking of many people here.

 

MNR must also budget and work harder to get environmental violations out to the news media. For example, local newspapers should periodically list local violators so members of the public through peer pressure can encourage these lawbreakers to mend their ways. Logging companies cutting into a calving site... or a pollution discharge froma local pulp mill should all be cast into the local limelight better to embarass and correct violators.

 

So what needs improvement about the natural resources of Ontario??? Answer....the work of the Ministry of Education. Public education and awareness needs to be enhanced by this Ministry to the level of instilling a strong stewardship ethic that prevents folks from harming the environment in the first place, and which also helps encourage folks to pressure violators whos actions are disrespectful of Ontario's natural environment and the laws in place to protect them.

[Smokey]

Someone else brought up a survey with our fishing license. This could also be a great tool for getting MNR/anglers informed feedback. With each license application, there could be a small report on the status of our fisheries (or a particular fishery) along with a questionare to be filled out by the angler. This would be very helpful in determining how many anglers are actually pounding the water every year.....and for what species, etc. The possibilities are endless.

 

I like that idea as well. We all ready have this program in place for big game hunting, why not extend it over the the fisheries. People that fail to file reports at seasons end in hunting are limited the following year with there opportunities to apply for certain tags for hunts. It's great way for the MNR to gather info without having to be in the field all the time and maybe they could use there free time to get out and do a bit more enforcement.

 

It's always been tough for the MNR to gain extra money in the budgets when the biggest concern with the majority of taxpayers in the Province is the state of our health care system. As usual the biggest lobby groups have the most pull with the government so they often win. So as OFNer's maybe some of the membership could take a few minutes to write a letter highlighting there concerns and send it off to our new Minister and Dalton. Let them know we are watching them and how concerned you are about the current state of of fisheries and who knows maybe some of it will get thru to them.

 

I know for a fact that many ideas raised on this board do make it thru to MNR staff. I know of at least one ofner's that was on a board to help with the fishing reg changes in the Kawartha's. So keep the positive ideas coming cause you never know who's reading them.

 

Mike

[cisco]

Good idea re surveys. However MNR has no real social-science expertise and has been skewing surveys in their design for many years.

[aniceguy]

Great thread

Some extremely well thought out points and counter points

Smokey your right you never know who is reading these very threads.....

Cisco your last post in certain instances is dead on and a completly accurate analysis.

 

I wanted to drive this topic/ thread potentially in a new direction.

 

Let me ask this question

 

If OMNR decided to eliminate the conservation portion of a liscense and go with a full liscence, increase the fee to say $40.00 and match that very same money dollar for dollar into a newly created SPA, as stakeholder re injection to capacity how would the majority of anglers feel about that.

 

Also as we know there are a lot of discrepencies in the regulatory package as it exists now, would a Q and A section on the ministries web site where a specific question on a specific body of water/river can be asked and the official answer be posted, would that be a helpful thing and something that would assist in clarification

[troutologist]

I find a lot of excellent candor on this topic. I personally support any measure that would work to add to the MNR being allocated funds to better enforce and study the fisheries (and wildlife). I think first of all they need funds to use to study be it creel surveys or actual mark-recapture population data ecological variables etc. Without proper scientific investigation decisions made are put through for the wrong reason (read spring bear hunt). After sound management is put into regulation they have to be able to better enforce what is there. I personally have been fishing and hunting in ontario close to 70 days in 2007 and was check by CO's ONCE. No longer are there checkpoints coming into town on long or opening weekends. Also there were 4 occasions I called the TIPS line and nothing came of it, 3 were blatant "dude you just showed me 2 bows on a stringer dead and you kept a 3rd you know thats over the limit" reply "yes" or take a hike. no follow up at all by COs or OPP I waited and gave license plate # and asked the guy next time on the river.

 

Surveys are a great idea in my opinion but how much will it cost to implement and where is the money being taken from.

 

The answer??? license fee increases? Im all for it but does this dissuade the casual anglers from participating or encourage fishing without a license for 1 or 2 trips a year?

 

I think a group like OFAH or the like has to develop a feasablie political plan involving a move to reallocate poaching related infractions to MNR SPAs and push for more money being put into the MNR. They will have to lobby the provicial government with it just like antis would do. What can we do as individuals? I believe a petition is a good start regarding requested changes. I think writing, calling or emailing local MPs with our concerns will eventually have an impact.

 

The fish populations in many cases are great for angling in ontario. However there are a lot of resources used in maintianing this. Stocking was touched on and this is an integral strategy of the MNR to buffer natural populations by adding easily accesible opportunities.

The best way I believe we can help the resource is to work to preserve the ecosystem as a whole by making as many choices in daily life that will minimize the impact we have on the environment as a whole.

Edited December 20, 2007 by troutologist

[bbog]

In response to "aniceguy" I would be agreement with higher license fees IF they came with higher (much higher) fines for infractions. Obviously the higher fines would need to include additional CO presence and enforcement.

[gbalardo]

my personal opinion is that the problem is that our license money is going to general funds for roads and maitenance, the money is not reinvested into the resource. The money that is put back in is mismanaged anyways. The fish they do stock are stocked in areas where they are plucked out before they even have a chance. The offices the ministry operates out of are bigger than schools with about 4 people working them. on the bright side, private groups and organizations do a lot of work (ofah ect.) If you go across the border they treat it as a business and it shows they're lakes have poorer water quality but more fish in them and more people fishing.

[cisco]

Niceguy, in response, in my opinion the majority of informed Ontario anglers presently feel a bit cheated and abandoned by the ontario government. They probably see the recent extreme MNR funding cuts as a slap in the face re the past MNR promises to earmark fish licence dollars to improve things. I thought there was a SPA set up for that? But regardless of a SPA it doesn't do any good if identical funds are removed from the MNR budget when the SPA dollars roll in. I'm afraid any deal involving an increase in the cost of the regular licence and elimination of the conservation licence will be met with much eye rolling and skepticism.

 

If a deal as you suggest goes through, a lower percentage of anglers will probably buy licences using the excuse of the new higher price cash grab; and that they only fish a little bit so are being unfairly treated because they can't get the cheaper licence anymore.

 

The public doesn't understand or care about Special Purpose Accounts. They care that they can't trust gov't due to all the cutbacks they have seen/experienced or heard about.

 

It's time for MNR to give something to the public to regain trust so the public will want to give something back. Yet I read how the total fisheries budget is now 90% of licence revenues (or something like that) which gives the definite impression to me that the overall goal of gov't is to eventually have anglers cover 100% of the fisheries budget.

 

At present the Ontario government isn't acting like a governing entity trying to shape our society/culture. If it did, then it would research and assign a value to our fisheries resource to determine Cabinet Board funding support which properly reflects the value of it to our culture.

 

To make the needed changes, MNR cannot act alone. Meetings with the Minister will accomplish nothing worthwhile as long as Cabinet Board and the Min of Education rule what people are taught and what money MNR gets to operate.

 

We need to learn who sits on Cabinet Board and where they live to focus local pressure on them so they start acting like we want them to act. Sad that their budget allocations shape the destiny our culture, yet few folks know who these penny-pinchers are! They are the hidden bosses of MNR and the Min of Education. These people shape our culture and society.

Get them on side and get MNR and Min of Ed moving in the right direction

[cisco]

Here is the link of the strangers who shape MNR and Min of Ed funding and the destiny of wild life management in Ontario. They control the money!!!

 

http://www.premier.gov.on.ca/team/committee.asp?Team=2

[Marc Thorpe]

In concerms to surveys and questioning the resource users,they could mail them out with license renewals as I just received my renewal.The user could answer a series of questions and information could be supplied along with questionaire.

How to finance,well increase license fees for non provincial residants came into effect in 08 ,just like Quebec.As a non resident of the province the rate is more expensive.I think this is a good step in the right direction. Co fines should be directed and used in fish and game resource accounts not funneled up to the top to be dispersed in other departements.Stealing from peter to pay paul

 

Louis,the prob with OMNR site ,is most dont go there,all Gv sites are a cluster to comprehend

The angling public,either keeps to themselves,are members of magazines,clubs,organizations or web site.If you want public involment,you go to them...

 

Cisco,if as you say the long term goal is to have MNR funded by the users,I should hope all funds generated in the departements of fish and game which includes infractions fines remain in fish and game coffers.

[cisco]

Licences are here to stay. One reason is since COs otherwise would be hard-pressed to know who to ask whether a non-resident licence was needed by em. Licences should be set price-wize according to cost recovery of the licence and its beaurocracy plus the cost of manpower $ to check folks in the field along with a tiny bit more to add some profit into the general fund from violators $$$

 

Licence and fine revenue should not carry the cost of wild life management in Ontario. Licence costs must reflect our society's desire to allow anyone of any age as resident of Ontario to go angling. Angling should be a desired outcome of the actions of our gov't. The budget of MNR should be determined simply by reflecting the funding of an other jurisdiction where it can be seen that it has advanced to a level/quality of resource management that we wish to achieve. By properly studying other jurisdictions we will find out which one(s) to mimic. Don't laugh since we've been trying to mimic Sweden's moose program and moose pop'n accomplishments for years... unsuccessfully.

 

The US Fish and Wildlife Service has proven to be a great federal influence on state-run wildlife programs... but here we have a weak Canadian Wildlife Service which does little to work with all jurisdictions in Canada to help achieve a high standard of quality. The USFWS works hard to ensure high-quality management whereas here the provincial/territorial gov't cut cut cut since they know or/and care little about the resources other than a cash/taxation source. In the US they care more about serving the people rather than... ahem... 'servicing' the people.

 

Gov't here needs to use way more tax dollars to manage our resources to encourage behaviour like angling, hunting and nature viewing. Unless of course gov't is opposed to these behaviours as they seem to be now in certain instances.

Edited December 21, 2007 by cisco

[Chris]

What really scares the hell outta me is the thought that more money is gonna help anything. It's not. When since the history of time has more money thrown at any Gov't. agency had results??? We've been throwing more and more money at health care and education and those two institutions continue to be nothing more than a house of cards waiting to collapse. It's blind to think otherwise.

 

We need to push for Gov't. accountability 1st and foremost before we see any improvements.

[cisco]

To Chris S. .... Specific funding to address specific problems/issues that has emerged is just the thing required. I'm not saying throw money blindly at MNR (as if that'll ever happen). By developing plans and programs based on ones that work in other jurisdictions we can prioritize what needs to be done and at what cost.

 

Achieving gov't accountability like you suggest is a foggy huge thing that effects all actions of gov't and also will be assessed by everyone in a different way. May as well solve world hunger before trying to fix wild life management issues here in Ontario then..... LOL!

 

Premier should grant $200,000 the first year to get proper staff officed and working on developing a blueprint to get the MNR and the Min of Ed to develop curriculum/lesson plans along the lines they once did (a bit) when there was $ to do such stuff. Once the Premier and MNR/Min of Ed Ministers tell staff to do it and here's the money.... it'll get started.

 

It isn't as grandeous as achieving gov't accountability, but it would focus on a specific issue/problem to help our society develop a better stewardship ethic towards the wild life resource. That should be a stated objective the progress of which can easily be measured by developing goals tracking such things like.... whether/how much reduction of no-licence fines fines and CO experiences with uninformed outdoorspeople occur as percentage of total annual anglers dealt with.

 

It's not that expensive or hard, to achieve meaningful results which reflect improved angler ethics and understanding afield.

[cisco]

Judging by the computer-claimed hits on this thread (approximatey 200 since yesterday) I would surely believe that someone will know the answer to the following question. I can't remember the name right now... but MNR Wildlife Branch circa 1985 had a school program going with the Min of Education re MNR stuff..

 

Can anyone name the program which was designed to teach Ontario students some fundamentals of wild life management here in Ontario? I think it had the word 'school' in it... but the name escapes me presently.

 

Anyone know the answer? The program was a major accomplishment since it demonstrated that Ministries can in fact work together instead of acting as blindly robotic independents with no overlapping responsibilities.

 

Anyone? What was the name of the program?

[Marc Thorpe]

Cisco,I suspect like so many do today and what Chris is pointing out is as soon as they are pointed doing wrong,They hang up the phone or stop answering or communicating when raisng issues.Accountability starts with admital to doing wrong or commiting a mistake

Accountability starts with using funds in the most ROI possible way,not research when the information is availible, wasting funds on committees when they are already on a payroll is beyond my comprehention

We currently live in a era of Non Accountability,These are public funds they are using.

When did non acccountability fall into place when using tax payer/donated funds?

This behavior will only turn and spite face and loose all interest in support.

You also are aware 50% of all tax generated funds go to pay civil servants salaries,maybe cutting paper workers would be a good place to start in gaining more funds,posssibly re assign them into the field as Co's

 

Would be interesting to see the ratio of field workers versus office workers?

 

 

With shortage of CO in every province,it would be interesting to see wage increases by staff members? Are they deserved when we are lacking in resource protection and proper management?

 

I am confused about your reply on licenses?

I think funds generated should remain in coffers along with increased exemplary fines for abusers

I support the non provincial resident hike

 

Changes in regs should not be lobbied,they should be communicated with the end users and license holders not specific interest groups

 

I wonder how many politicians do fish?

Louis you might want to ask your pal at the head of office if she has ever fished and does she currently enjoy the sport of hunting and fishing?

Edited December 22, 2007 by marc thorpe

[cisco]

Sorry for the confusion Marc. I just don't want the cost of licences to discourage financially-challenged and young and occasional people from fishing. The more fishers out there the more we build a stewardship ethic, especially with the education program I am calling for. I agree we need more better trained COs out there. I only say that the moneys to manage F and W in Ontario should be largely borne by the public tax system. Everyone benefits so why should just anglers and hunters pay for it? Increased fines is good too, but that should be for all parties screwing with the resource from loggers cutting into calving sites to; chemical polutors at rivers to; granddad with a fish over limit.

 

Some seem concerned that increasing MNR funding will result in wasted dollars. Well I'm not saying to just toss money at it. Again, perhaps the best approach is to form a stakeholder council where funding priorities can be developed. I dunno. This is off the topic a bit. Accountability would be present if a few stakeholder groups were involved with the design of the program of stewardship which I am putting forward. And as I said, if the Premier gives clear instructions and a budget specific to the stewardship program, it could be done. Been there done that so-to-speak. Having helped build/reshape some programs at MNR years ago I am convinced MNR does not presently have the needed professionals in place to create a stewardship program with the Min of Ed.. Present bios aren't what's required so much as bio-teacher-social science types. With the cutbacks there is a skeleton crew in place who's barely able to keep their heads above water just to manage core issues. I even read somewhere recently that the District offices will be closed to public. Call if you need anything.... That is a further step in the wrong direction.

 

How bad is/was MNR at public consultation and surveys? AWFUL. Many examples where they ask limited and leading questions to get the response THEY wanted on issues. For example, in surveys to determine park uses to permit, they'd forget that the park program was supposed to reflect local resident traditions/desires. Surveys would be done at the high-visitor times when the most folks from the city are there to fill in the surveys. Local resident input then gets lost in the shuffle so folks from places far away (citiots some would call them) have total say/control how the park is managed.

 

I'd never let a bio do surveys without the proper training. Their education is based more as introverts staring through microscopes..... with a strong love towards flora and fauna and a distaste for human interventions into nature. Hardly the type of person who cares/worries sufficiently about the people side of wild life management.

 

Oh, and the Reguatory changes have been made for several different reasons, not just due to lobbying. Over the years of questionable success in the courts fighting against violations, MNR has found out the hard way there are many loopholes and stuff which got violators off the hook with their fancy lawyers. Those things were tightened up. Also, due to funding/manpower cutbacks the entire MNR Ontario geographic map has been changed so the slices are bigger and the areas where rules apply are bigger. Hardly an ecosystem approach as they claim it to be. If anything their ""Ecosystem Approach" is anything but! Their approach will streamline and simplify the regs and enforcement so less MNR staff are needed to run the show both in the field and from the office. Lobbying has had a tiny impact to all of this. Negligible in my opinion.

Edited December 22, 2007 by cisco