Moose Program Review:
Dear Sir/Madam:

Thank you for the opportunity of providing comments to your moose program review.

As many fellow moose hunters have correctly commented, most of us accepted the selective harvest
system back in 1983 because the program was sound, well thought-out and contained some impressive
targets, i.e: to increase the moose population from 80,000 to 100,000 by 1985, 140,000 by 1995 and
160,000 by 2000, and to provide for annual moose harvests of 10,000 after 1985 and up to 25,000 by
2000. Despite significant decreased moose tag allocations, the moose heard has not increased and
remains at 109,000. This year, 100,000 moose hunters will "share" 15,000 tags and will have an expected
harvest success rate of about 10%. What about the other 90% non-hunting mortality of moose? It is
becoming clear that the MNR has abdicated their mandate and the spirit of the 1980 Moose Policy
document.

Due to the politically motivated, non-scientific and totally unwarranted closing of the spring bear hunt, we
now have in northern Ontario a severe over-population of black bears. It is reliably reported that 50% of
the 50,000 moose calves born each spring become easy meals for the hungry black bears within 2 weeks
of being born. The MNR's response...cut the number of moose tags allocated and issue more calf hunting
restrictions. The reasonable action to take would be to use hard scientific data to promote the reopening
of the spring bear hunt, and/or allow moose and deer hunters to harvest one bear on their big-game
licenses. Also, recent changes to wolf and coyote harvesting may compound the problem and lead to
more predator calf mortality. Clearly, the problem is not a case of hunters harvesting a greater percentage
of the moose population.

Many of us were disappointed that the Moose Program public sessions were not held to discuss policy but
strictly to receive comments on how to allocate the meager 15,000 tags to the 100,000 hunters applying.
The MNR seems intent on managing hunters rather than managing the moose population,
habitat and ecosystem. Much could be accomplished in moose management by implementing rational
forestry practices, such as increasing moose cover, using checkerboard patterns of alternating deciduous
and coniferous forest, and other wildlife beneficial strategies.

Apparently, the Moose Management Policy portion was discussed, revised and approved behind closed
doors, much as the 1999 Ontario Forestry Accord was also done. With all due respect, the MNR's "public
consultation" sessions do not garner much respect within the outdoors community, and have the
reputation of preconceived agendas and resolutions with public "input" being only window-dressing.
Nevertheless, we taxpayers must keep trying to convey our opinions.

In closing, I would strongly recommend that the MNR remove the EBR posting and allow much more
input from a larger number of knowledgeable moose hunters and outdoors enthusiasts, many more than
the relatively few representatives (3% of moose hunters?) who were invited to the closed-to-the-
public MNR/OFAH meetings on moose management policy.

Respectfully submitted,
Simon R. Guillet.