Creation of more Conservation Officers.

[Harrison]

Seems alot of anglers/hunters believe there is a lack of CO's in Ontario.

 

I was just finishing up a salary cost planning project here at work and it got me thinking.

 

The cost for a CO, I am guessing, is say approx. $175,000 a year.

 

i.e. Salary, benefits, pension, equipment/gear/unform/truck, vacation/sick time cover off, staff support etc..

 

Wondering if a CO could "support" their own position through fines, confiscating property etc..

 

Just thinking more CO's = more revenue = more service

 

Just throwing this out there, would you assume a CO generates more then $175,000 annually through enforcement?

[JohnF]

Seems alot of anglers/hunters believe there is a lack of CO's in Ontario.

 

I was just finishing up a salary cost planning project here at work and it got me thinking.

 

The cost for a CO, I am guessing, is say approx. $175,000 a year.

 

i.e. Salary, benefits, pension, equipment/gear/unform/truck, vacation/sick time cover off, staff support etc..

 

Wondering if a CO could "support" their own position through fines, confiscating property etc..

 

Just thinking more CO's = more revenue = more service

 

Just throwing this out there, would you assume a CO generates more then $175,000 annually through enforcement?

 

I suspect that if our govt thought this was a cash cow they'd have created one CO for every fisherman and hunter by now.

 

JF

[Headhunter]

I don't think so Phil... based a 250 day work year, in order to "pay" for themselves. they would have to write approx. $700.00 worth of fines per working day.

They may reach that on a weekend, especially in the winter where anglers are pretty much bunched up in a few places, but even then, it's very rare to see one C.O.. I've seen them mostly in pairs, which puts their team into the $350,000.00 per anum range.

Plus, based on fines levied on site and by the courts, it seems to me that there just isn't enough money moving to cover their costs.

HH

[[email protected]]

I'm gonna put on an MNR vest and start confiscating everyones gear. It's like my own Walmart! lol.

 

That makes me think of those cops, we used to call them river rats, that ride around on the dirt bikes looking for teenagers smoking pot. Then would confiscate the drugs and you just knew that they were either using them or selling them like 10 minutes later. (Not that I did any of that, but my friends did lol)

[Paully]

I don't think so Phil... based a 250 day work year, in order to "pay" for themselves. they would have to write approx. $700.00 worth of fines per working day.

They may reach that on a weekend, especially in the winter where anglers are pretty much bunched up in a few places, but even then, it's very rare to see one C.O.. I've seen them mostly in pairs, which puts their team into the $350,000.00 per anum range.

Plus, based on fines levied on site and by the courts, it seems to me that there just isn't enough money moving to cover their costs.

HH

 

 

Up the fines and everything will be balanced...

[Harrison]

I don't think so Phil... based a 250 day work year, in order to "pay" for themselves. they would have to write approx. $700.00 worth of fines per working day.

They may reach that on a weekend, especially in the winter where anglers are pretty much bunched up in a few places, but even then, it's very rare to see one C.O.. I've seen them mostly in pairs, which puts their team into the $350,000.00 per anum range.

Plus, based on fines levied on site and by the courts, it seems to me that there just isn't enough money moving to cover their costs.

HH

 

Good points.

 

It is easy to look from the outside in, but wouldn't you think if all revenue generated including property(including vehicles, atv's etc.) sold by auctions plus fines would be enough if put in one pot to fund only CO's.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Harrison

[bigugli]

States like Florida, Georgia, etc... include fine revenue as a large part of their budgets in various state departments. They also do not give out piddly fines and offer little leeway. They also don't have a system that bends over backwards to give you a light penance.

 

Start the fines as a $500 progressive.

Edited November 19, 2009 by bigugli

[aniceguy]

Here is Part of a policy brief that I wrote a while back I think it effictively dealt with the infection the OMNR has currently with its enforcement, while its dated by a fewyears it was sound fiscally when I wrote this....Happy that the current Minister agreed and has been ramping up enforment as of late. FYI a few weeks ago there were 40 CO trucks parked in Mississauga for delivery

 

CONSERVATION OFFICERS

 

Enforcement at present is grossly inadequate to protect our natural resources from poachers and unregulated industry.

 

We believe the self funding model used for Ontario Parks System for conservation enforcement is a realistic goal. To achieve this a 200% increase in active Conservation Officers is needed within the first year of proposed improvement in the MNR. Currently there are 199 conservation officers patrolling close to a 1 million square kilometers as opposed to 1992 when there were 257 uniformed officers. Our proposal targets roughly 400 CO’s working in the field with another 50 in management and special operations. A specialized legal council would also benefit the special investigations team for larger cases. The increase in CO’s should be distributed equally based on the number of CO’s today in each region.

Conservation Officer Background data.

The following are general facts about the work of Conservation Officers in 2006:

 

The current government has been very withdrawn regarding commitments in particular where a paper trail is present and has in fact been under edict to communicate budget short falls in.

 

In the previous Conservative government, conservation officers had approximately $15,000 a year for expenses, or $300 a week in an economic environment where fuel costs were in the 50 to 70 cents/Litre range. Under the current government model a conservation officer on average receives 50% less not withstanding inflation.

 

At present Conservation officers have directive to reduce enforcement targets. Original targets were established in April 2006, using a risk-based analysis to identify priority areas for enforcement. The 40 per cent cut will therefore affect areas already identified as being at the highest risk. Conservation officers are being directed to manage by priority the top priorities will be public safety and endangered species.

 

Operating budget of the Investigation and Intelligence Section has been cut by roughly 60 per cent. The primary work of the IIS involves investigations, including undercover work, around the commercialization of wildlife: illegal harvesting of bear gall bladders, illegal hunting of trophies for sale, illegal commercial fishing, and so on. The normal operating expenses for the Section total about $250,000 per year. This year they will be closer to $100,000.

 

MNR’s award-winning Flying Conservation Officer program has been eliminated and two Conservation Officer Pilots received surplus notices. This program had provided years of effective access to the remote and sensitive areas throughout the province, especially in the north. MNR says Conservation Officers will use the MNR Air Service instead – highly doubtful since it costs over $500 an hour for an aircraft. The end of the Flying Conservation Officer program means an end to any meaningful enforcement throughout much of northern Ontario.

 

Most Conservation Officers have been allotted enough overtime to work one statutory holiday and an additional eight hours for the year.

 

MNR is reducing the number of trucks for Conservation Officers. Three officers will now share two vehicles in many cases. In 1992, when there were 257 officers, there were 257 patrol vehicles. Today, with 173 field officers, there are between 110 and 120 vehicles.

 

MNR is reducing the number of computers for Conservation Officers. Officers will now share computers.

 

MNR has invested tens of millions of dollars in the construction of logging roads for industry. These roads open up new lakes to fish in and new lands to hunt in. With a general reduction in enforcement, these new areas will be like the Wild West for fishers and hunters.

 

On July 31, 2006, OPSEU made a Freedom of Information request to get the exact numbers for Conservation Officer Budgets

Reduction in enforcement

The chart below, received from MNR through Freedom of Information, shows reductions in Conservation Officer Enforcement

Fiscal Year # of

Contacts # of

Warnings # of

Charges Active

Charges Completed

Charges Convictions $ Fine Total

2004 / 2005 281,994 9,541 9,152 453 8,699 6,994 $1,894,876.91

2005 / 2006 263,116 8,934 8,104 1,318 6,786 5,638 $1,415,636.02

 

Reduction

Totals - 18,878 - 607 - 1,048 865 - 1,913 - 1,356 - $479,240.89

 

 

The IIS needs to be expanded and to be allowed to pursue developers and the corporate sector and increase its ability to levy fines within the mandate currently in place. At present most fines are minimal and are simply the “cost of doing business” for businesses that break the law. These set fines need to be readdressed and prioritized into 3 categories, with the determination as to which category the infraction falls within is based on environmental cause, socioeconomic ramification to the environment and other mitigating factors. All fines within these 3 categories should be increased in effect sending a message that environmental negligence in sustainable building practices can go no further, also these fines should have a ramp up phase for multiple infractions under the initial infraction. While at the same time if a developer is practicing environmentally sound practices that a tax relief incentive can be devised therefore rewarding good corporate citizens.

 

Conservation fines should be increased 2 fold again sending a message to Ontario Citizens that breaches against our Natural Resources can no longer go unpunished.

 

Using the model above we can extrapolate that each Conservation officer was able to generate $7113.75 per fiscal year (2005-06) in fines paid. Based on our proposal it is anticipated a doubling in fine amounts, a doubling in the number of officers would increase the fine totals to 5.6 millions dollars. Plus, increased enforcement action against commercial infractions and more effective enforcement should net a 2 fold increase, thus achieving roughly 11 millions dollars in fines per year. These fines would cover a significant portion of the costs for the increase in enforcement.

 

Enforcement Bullets:

 

o Double the number of conservation officers working in Ontario in 2008.

o Double all basic poaching fines in Ontario with strict minimum fines to avoid smaller fines handed down by JP’s not aware of poaching issues.

o Significant increase in minimum fines to industry and development where infractions under the Fisheries Act impact spawning habitat, water quality and quantity and reduce fishing opportunity. Minimum fine may be $10,000 a day, with a sliding scale based on severity and repeat offences to $1,000,000 per day).

o Increase CO accountability in the field with increased patrols and enforcement targets.

o Create a mobile CO team in each regional MNR area (north, east, central and south) that work in ‘hot’ enforcement issues throughout the year such as moose hunting season or salmon spawning seasons.

o Consider partnerships with OPP in areas where enforcement needs additional help.

Edited November 19, 2009 by aniceguy

[Fang]

I'd pay $5 more a year per license if I knew funds would be used for CO hiring and equipment. At 175K that's 35000 license. Last I had heard there was almost 10x that in resident license sold and almost the same $ in non resident licenses.

[Twocoda]

if their pay structure was a percentage of the gross in fines they incorporated ...you might find them EVERYWHERE....no need to pull more tax paying dollars out of the pockets of the people...inintial investment would be ...trucks...and people willing to enforce..in order to reep the benefits of their own diligence.

[camillj]

if their pay structure was a percentage of the gross in fines they incorporated ...you might find them EVERYWHERE....no need to pull more tax paying dollars out of the pockets of the people...inintial investment would be ...trucks...and people willing to enforce..in order to reep the benefits of their own diligence.

 

While I strongly support funding the CO budgets and would also support higher licence/user fees to that end... I would caution that putting the CO's in a position of conflict of interest by tying their income to their revenue produced would undermine the credibility of the entire system and call into question the motives of every officer.... not a good idea I am afraid.

[Twocoda]

While I strongly support funding the CO budgets and would also support higher licence/user fees to that end... I would caution that putting the CO's in a position of conflict of interest by tying their income to their revenue produced would undermine the credibility of the entire system and call into question the motives of every officer.... not a good idea I am afraid.

 

 

yep i see your point ...outside looking in .....but a bad idea is better then NO idea...

[timmeh]

I'd pay $5 more a year per license if I knew funds would be used for CO hiring and equipment. At 175K that's 35000 license. Last I had heard there was almost 10x that in resident license sold and almost the same $ in non resident licenses.

 

I agree that this, along with increasing the amount of fines, is the way to go. I would not hesitate to pay an extra $50 for a license if the MNR produced a plan that would demonstrate how the $ would be put to use.

[Terry]

yeah I would not want COs, cops or courts on a quota system of self funding...

 

want a raise, fine more people.......

[Guest Johnny Bass]

$175,000 a year? Dont you think that is a tad too high?Do they buy a new truck every year? I dont even think it would break 40k a year. If they actually had more conservation officers? They could easily afford to pay their salaries in fines. Lots of poachers out there. What I seen on rice lake alone in the spring? A CO could easily net 40K in fines. In a week.

[Terry]

I would hate to think they only make 40k a year more like 80k

plus pension sick days med benefits, then equipment, I am sure it's well over 100k for one CO

[Guest Johnny Bass]

I would hate to think they only make 40k a year more like 80k

plus pension sick days med benefits, then equipment, I am sure it's well over 100k for one CO

 

 

A year??? There are doctors that make 90,000 a year. If a CO makes 100K? I want in!!!!!

 

40k is over $700 week.

 

What equipement? Uniform and boots?

 

Trucks or boats are not bought yearly.

[Terry]

teachers make 90k

custodians make over 40k

the dog catcher makes 65k

a co with a gun.....65k to 85k I would think

[Guest Johnny Bass]

Teachers that specialize in a subject make 90K. Like a science teacher. You want to compare a custodian to a C.O. officer?If Co's are making $1000 or more a week? They are overpaid in my opinion. Real cops dont make that kind of money. And security guards and bouncers are making $11 and hour.

[Musky or Specks]

And people you need to remember poaching not as important as habitat destruction despite what you may think. Some one poaches new fish will eventually replace the old. Destroy the habitat = No fish EVER!!!!!

[Nemo]

Slippery.................slope.

[Terry]

Teachers that specialize in a subject make 90K. Like a science teacher. You want to compare a custodian to a C.O. officer?If Co's are making $1000 or more a week? They are overpaid in my opinion. Real cops dont make that kind of money. And security guards and bouncers are making $11 and hour.

 

teachers in public schools jk to 8

 

and I was not comparing custodians to a co, I was stating custodians make over 40k a year there for I would think a co makes more

 

a friend was just a regular cop and 15 years ago and he was making 60k.....so I would think he making 80 by now

[irishfield]

I can't understand why folks throw out fictious numbers in this day and age and then argue about it.... when Google can tell you the facts in a few minutes

 

What they promise kids at Fleming

 

Conservation and environmental officers' salaries in Ontario range from $45,000.00 - $68,000.00 annually. In particular, women and other under-represented groups are encouraged to apply to the program - there are many opportunities for you.

 

Job posting

 

Ministry: Ministry of Natural Resources

Division: Field Services Division, Enforcement Branch, Provincial Operations Section

Position Title: CONSERVATION OFFICER

Duration: 1 Permanent

Location: 48 Mission Road, Wawa, P0S 1K0, North Region

 

Compensation Group: OPSEU

Salary: $30.40 - $32.89 per hour*

Position Status: Open

Job Code: 41106 - Resource Tech 4-Conserv Officer

Schedule: 4.7

Category: Corrections and Enforcement

Job ID: 6658

 

2100 hour 9 - 5 year would be $70 K at $32.89/hr + overtime + employers match of CPP + employers 1.4 x employee amount of EI + vehicles upkeep/fuel + training expenses + equipment +++ Easily $100K per officer and probably closer to what Harrison started this thread at when you add all the bosses above them and building expenses to house everyone. There is no money being made off the inside workers that out number the CO's greatly. Harrison did state $175,000 / CO including support staff.

 

Oh.. and I missed the OPSEU union.. add the cost of negotiations etc.

Edited November 20, 2009 by irishfield

[Guest Johnny Bass]

teachers in public schools jk to 8

 

and I was not comparing custodians to a co, I was stating custodians make over 40k a year there for I would think a co makes more

 

a friend was just a regular cop and 15 years ago and he was making 60k.....so I would think he making 80 by now

 

From what I hear, the average cop makes about 60k today(I believe OPP make even less) and fire fighters about 50K and I dont think a CO should earn anywhere near what a cop does or a firefighter for that matter. But thats just me.

[Terry]

I base my answers on good info

here is a cut and paste

basic salary of $80,564

"

Re: 2008 Durham Regional Police Contract

 

Postby Tank » Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:16 pm

The Peel Regional Police rank-and-file officially accepted a new collective agreement on today, ending their unprecedented work-to-rule campaign.

 

Interim Peel Regional Police Association (PRPA) president Bruce Chapman said more than 1,600 of the association's 2,400 uniformed officers and civilian members voted on the new deal with the Peel Police Services Board (PSB). He said 87.1 per cent of uniformed officers ratified the deal, while 76.1 per cent of civilian members voted in favour.

 

The four-year deal will see wage increases of 3.21 per cent retroactive to Jan. 1, 2007, followed by 3.19 per cent in 2008, 3.12 per cent in 2009 and 3.25 per cent in 2010. It means a first-class constable in Peel will earn a basic salary of $80,564, up from a top pay of $71,441."