WOW, how bad can you do at moose management ? guess we are all finding out, we pay the price once again so MNR officials can sit at their desks in Peterbrough waiting to collect their pensions while keeping us off Crown Land once again
Hi … this is all quite predictable …. MNR has been ‘needlessly reducing tags’ since the moose population reached the top of the bell curve of ‘maximum sustainable mortality yield’ in 1994 (and perhaps few years before); despite the slashed tags, twenty years later and Ontario’s herd has not gained one moose. In 1994 the tag # was 24,000;with this announcement we will be lucky to have 50% (12,000). The main reason being that the only predator MNR is willing to mange is perhaps the smallest number of moose mortality taken (hunters).
What about the out of control populations or wolves & bears????
Pay attention to section 6.0 in the attached and tell me I’m wrong … the other moose mortality factors on the downside of the bell curve are First Nation’s kills, road kills, rail kills, disease & starvation … of which the MNR has a handle on none of those, let alone any idea of their numbers.
Nothing good will be in the future of moose hunting until & unless they start paying attention to the important stuff this original plan (1980) … it’s all there in this solid plan yet MNR simply ignored many crucial important measures … MNR just needs to adhere to it and implement it!!!! Unfortunately it may already be too late!!
Some members may have received this e-mail but this is not good. No where does it say the #’s are reduced for all groups, only us licence “paying” individuals. The system is “Stupid” in the first place. Most would agree.
I have been attending meetings since this calf /lottery tag system was first introduced. The MNR armed with BOGUS info keep reducing the numbers for “us”.
Please excuse the shape of the document below, it is the best we could to make it readable.
Comments on this entry are closed.
I must agree with you, if there was ever a Ministry that needs to be dismantled and abolished – Its the MNR!
I had some discussing with our local Biologist and Thunder Bay’s Higher ups over the moose tags 2-3 yrs ago.
I’ll give you some history as to how we came to this.
Roughly 5 yrs ago, we had A (one) public meeting here in Geraldton, where the MNR Biologist was asking the local hunters for advice and ideas on how they could improve the herd size, should we reduce the season?, should we introduce a calf draw?, should we reduce the tag allocations? Should we make party applications mandatory? Should we make tag holders mandatory hunters (can’t transfer the tags to other party members)…
The following year, came the Caribou incentive, to try to introduce the Caribou down to North Bay? As apparently they were in the 1840’s???
So the MNR tried to eradicate the moose here in the WMU 19 & 21A, by giving out an enormous amount of tags.
When I questioned the Biologist on this brainwave tactic, I asked him why we needed to lower the moose herds? His reply was, “if we lower the moose numbers, then the wolf numbers will also go down, which are the predators of the Caribou” ( apparently nothing else will eat a caribou? Bears don’t care for Caribou meat apparently?).
As well one must assume that wolves will not eat anything else but Moose and Caribou? (hint wolves are a CANIVOR, they will eat anything with a heartbeat or pulse!).
When I inquired on the population status of Moose, Caribou and Wolves back in the 1840’s, no one could give me an answer, because they did not have the data?
And they openly admitted that this exercise was a “roll of the dice”, and its a 20 -25 yrs experiment?
I mentioned to them, first your caved in to tree huggers with the Spring bear hunt cancellation, the outfitters much needed money maker to help them make it to the fishing season, not to mention a good managing tool for the Bear population. Now your slowly taking away the moose hunt, which will undoubtedly lower the number of tags allocated to them. So I asked, then you will introduce a Caribou season for the locals and outfitters right – “NO you will never see a Caribou season in Ontario!” was the reply.
(I find it funny that nobody says anything about the Deer tag allocations? A hunter can only have one Buck tag, but up to 6 Doe tags? I guess Bambi isn’t as cute as a bear cub?)
Now skip to the present 2014, and now they are saying the herd has declined in numbers?
If this isn’t enough proof that this MNR is Mis-managing our natural resources, I don’t know what is?
They have introduced LCC’s (local Citizen’s Committees) across the Province, in order to give shareholders a voice at the round table. This is a tactic that is used by this Ministry and others are adopting it as well. All they have to do is give the Public shareholders an opportunity to give them an opinion or have discussion on a certain topic, they do not have to listen, take direction from such discussions, or take any kind of actions with regards to discussions even if the overall census is to do so, with a very high %.
They only need to give you the opportunity to voice your concerns, and they are good to go.
I agree with you Paul, its the good ol’boys retirement club, get in, and find a job for your family members – and enjoy life at the taxpayers expense.
Like I have always stated, it does not matter which Gov’t body you are dealing with, Municipal, Prov, or Fed – you are dealing with Organized Crime in the highest degree.
All one has to do is look at the Gov’ts scandals on the News.
The information finally came out about the reduction in tags and it was not population based but a lack of proper MNR&F flyovers done in the specified WMU’s. In WMU 28 there are 320 flyover survey areas and the MNR&F are required to at the minimum fly over 20% or 64 flyovers and then figure out the population from there. Will this year they only flew over 17 of these areas once (not twice or three times which is required under the MNR&F own internal documents) which is 5%. So they based the entire strength of the herd on 5% of total area flown. I am simple but I am pretty sure you cannot do a proper population sampling based on 5%.