FOGR Letter to the MNR from John Dadds, Secretary of FOGR

Chris Brousseau, Senior Fisheries Biologist

MNR Fish and Wildlife Branch

5th Floor, North Tower, 300 Water Street

Peterborough, Ontario, K9J 8M5

Re: EBR Registry Number RB 05E6005

Dear Mr. Brousseau:

I’m offering the following comments on behalf of Friends of the Grand River (FOGR) in response to the Environmental Bill of Rights notice referred to above.

FOGR is an environmental group interested in the well being of the upper reaches of the Grand River and Conestoga Rivers. Most of its members are anglers. Many live locally and we also have members all over the U.S., even in the U.K. These people have seen first hand what our group does for the fishery and show their support by joining.

Our group has long supported the proposition that special regulations are needed to protect fragile fisheries. A case in point is the Grand River. It’s annual stocking allotment of 20K+ brown trout would be decimated without catch-and-release rules. Do the math: 100 anglers a day, five-fish limits and a five-month season.

Consequently, when there is discussion about applying uniform standards across broad swathes of Ontario, we are concerned that this high-quality fishery will be adversely affected.

Our concerns go beyond our immediate backyard, because there are many places where conservation measures have had to be introduced to protect local fisheries. The engine of simplicity must not be allowed to drive us into uniformly low standards that operate to the detriment of fisheries Ontario-wide.

Our comments relate first to portions of the EBR notice and then to the supporting document, A New Ecological Framework for Recreational Fisheries Management in Ontario.

Public consultation

The EBR notice states:

“In some areas, the change in boundaries and the implementation of fish species ‘tool kits’ to standardize regulations, may result in changes or reductions in fishing seasons and size limits. Further public consultation will occur wherever significant changes are proposed.”

The word “significant” is worrisome. Who decides when that value-laden word “significance” is applied? A more complete public consultation process must be established, both as a protection for the angling public and so that the Ministry cannot be accused of failing to garner public support on key issues by being selective about which issues received attention. Significance must be tested in a public arena where a lack of interest indicates a lack of significance and overwhelming interest speaks for itself.

Public consultation is anticipated, and the EBR notice states:

“Key outdoor groups such as the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters, and the Bait Association of Ontario will be invited to comment on the project.”

It should be remembered that OFAH represents a very small proportion of Ontario’s anglers. While it may be the largest organized group, many anglers consciously choose not to belong to it because of the attitudes and views espoused by the organization. There are many other groups in the province, albeit smaller, and MNR district offices will be aware of them. These groups should be brought into the process to broaden the consultation base and add validity to the amendments ultimately proposed for management zones and regulations. Without this support, the process will founder. While NOTO and the bait harvesters have interests in recreational fisheries, narrow commercial self-interests should not be allowed a stronger voice than the 1.4 million anglers in Ontario, merely by virtue of being easily accessible.

The introduction of the brown trout toolkit involved quite cursory public consultation and it harmed MNR’s reputation for considering the wider views of its clientele. In the eyes of the angling community, MNR did not distinguish itself with that process, yet it seems that toolkits are being held up as a linchpin of the proposed process..

Boundary changes/amalgamation

Changing boundaries of fisheries divisions and altering terminology can be regarded as a matter of progress, simple housekeeping. However, the manner in which it is being done in this instance is quite suspect.

It is introduced on an Environmental Bill of Rights listing with a 45-day comment period (longer than normal, it is agreed). Yet it’s difficult to tell if it is a fait accompli or if there is a genuine offer for the public to provide their input. The lack of geographic detail is telling. The lack of explanation of ecological zones, their relevance and impact, is a serious defect, especially when ecological units seem to be fundamental to the delineation of the new zones.

At the very least, the EBR notice should be rescinded until it can be supported by documentation describing the boundaries and the rationales for their selection. The authors of these documents seem to be relying on responses from biologists who can read between the many lines while doing little to educate, inform or seek opinions from the clientele base of 1.4 million anglers.

Maps of the proposed zones are exceedingly small, supported by text which describes in the most general terms the supposed ecological context of these boundaries, but the supporting document referred to earlier says:

“MNR biologists have developed techniques that will allow us to monitor the fisheries resource based on the new Fisheries Management Zones. Details of this program should be available within the next several months.” (p. 4)

Therefore, the message seems to be that we are being encouraged to comment, by April 4, 2005, on boundaries predicated on a cohesive management approach that is in the process of being designed and approved. Either the EBR notice of new zones is premature or it is the first pass of a steamroller intended to squelch public opinion.

Regulation changes

Tied in with a redrawing of the maps is what appears to be a wholesale review of the fisheries regulations, which is expected to take at least two years. While I hesitate to be cynical, it does appear that processing changes from divisions to zones is being used as an excuse to invoke regulation changes without full public consultation.

The document describing the proposed changes, A New Ecological Framework for Recreational Fisheries Management in Ontario, states:

“Development of the new Fisheries Management Zones provides an excellent opportunity to examine the need for existing regulations and exceptions, remove redundancies or make the wording of regulations and exceptions more clear and understandable.” (p. 2)

While simplifying the regulations is laudable, piggybacking considerable change on top of an innocuous mapping exercise gives the appearance of being less than honest with the public. It is almost as if consultation with stakeholders is only an afterthought.

“Public consultation will occur wherever significant changes are proposed,” the Framework states on page 3. This statement begs the question of who will decide if a change is significant and whether or not the public should be consulted.

We agree that special regulations have been introduced in special situations, and we also we agree with the suggestion that “the proliferation of special regulations in the last few decades is in itself a sign that fisheries are in trouble” (p. 4). However, based on our own participation in the management process on the Grand River, so recently lauded in an OMNR Ministerial Press Release, special regulations are often the best way to improve fisheries “that are in trouble.”

Extreme care must be taken that situations which deserved special attention are not sacrificed on the altar of easy monitoring and easy enforceability. The document draws attention to the cost of monitoring and enforcement, saying it is “prohibitive” (p. 4). But a balance must be struck between that practicality and a cost of tragic proportions exacted when a fishery is plundered because of the imposition of widespread generous catch limits and open seasons enacted in the interests of simplicity and ease of understanding and enforcement.

Conservation officers and biologists are professionals and should not be stumbling over whether a certain lake is in Division 35 or 36. If the cost is so prohibitive, a business case should explain the saving to justify the changes. Just saying it is not enough.

Existing regulations have been established after consideration by Ministry biologists, approved by experienced resource managers on the strength of a positive conservation case and then promulgated. Mechanisms are in place that allow for the application of adaptive management. To dismiss all of this effort now would be an incredible act of vandalism, and shows a complete lack of respect for the actions of these professionals for the sake of simplicity.

State of the Resource Reporting

Another reason offered to justify the new zones is ease of reporting. According to the Framework:

“The public expects resource information and resource status reports that are readily available and understood…. Putting in place ecologically based Fisheries Management Zones will allow us to report on the state of the fisheries resource across Ontario – something that we can’t really do right now.” (p. 4)

Who is ever likely to have time to prepare an assessment report covering every aspect of all the fisheries in Zone No. 16 (southwestern Ontario)? Our group is in the heart of this zone, which appears to embrace the area from Windsor in the west, to Toronto, then north, going around east of Lake Simcoe then to Wasaga Beach, around Georgian Bay to Tobermory and down the Lake Huron Shore to Sarnia.

An enormous area with many diverse fisheries, Zone 16 contains a broad mix of development types, from sparse agricultural to densely urban, and crosses two distinct forest types (Deciduous and Great Lakes/St. Lawrence). This diversity robs the ecological argument for new zones of its strength.

It contains warmwater and coldwater fisheries with resident and migratory populations and a good share of VTEs. It is unlikely to ever be reasonable to encapsulate assessments of all these fisheries in a single report, so this reporting argument is not compelling.

Stewardship

We encourage the managers responsible for the review of zones and regulations to have regard for the planning exercise undertaken by MNR, the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) and numerous local interests in developing the Grand River Fisheries Management Plan. Stewardship of the Grand River has resulted in the recent approval and publication of the Grand River Tailwater Fisheries Management Plan, 2005 – 2010, a “sub-plan” of the main watershed plan.

Friends of the Grand River was actively involved in development of the umbrella plan as well as the tailwater plan which affects a world class brown trout fishery on the Grand below Belwood Lake. Implementation committees that include resource managers and volunteers have been struck to oversee management action being applied to translate both of these plans into action.

FOGR members regard themselves as stewards of the river, as evidenced by the number of projects they work on every year which have a net benefit to the river.

Care of the river is a co-operative venture, and FOGR receives enormous support from MNR and the Grand River Conservation Authority. If it works for us, it can work for others, and it may offer a model that can be encouraged in other areas.

Conclusion

The fishing regulations in Ontario will benefit from an overhaul. The summary booklet is a complex document. But as the Framework points out, in a province of this size, with 24 per cent of Canada’s freshwater, including 40 per cent of the Great Lakes (presumably by area), 250,000 lakes, 20 per cent of the world’s lake trout lakes and more than 3,500 walleye lakes, fisheries management cannot be administered by a broad-brush approach.

Differences between ecoregions due to climate, geology, forest types and development must dictate that there be differences in management of the fishery resource.

There are also major social, economic and cultural differences between individual members of the Ministry’s clientele in the various regions of the province. This means that the Ministry must take to the streets to find out what anglers need in Kenora, Windsor, Toronto and Ottawa, and points in between.

Changes of the magnitude described thus far call for a “Lands for Life” approach, which will endeavour to take into account the wishes of the angling community in every region of the province. An approach involving public meetings across the province, the production of proposal documents and unveiling large-scale maps will be more effective in getting a set of zones and regulations that anglers and fisheries managers can be proud of. Your aim should be to have 1.4 million anglers aware of the regulations and doing all they can to support them.

Yours sincerely,
John Dadds

Secretary, Friends of the Grand River.