DATE:
2002.08.03
SECTION:
Sports
PAGE:
D6
SOURCE:
RECORD STAFF
BYLINE:
BILL THOMPSON
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The
cost of red tape and asinine laws; Decline in number of hunters means less
funding for conservation programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding
for Ontario's fish and wildlife budget is declining -- ironically due, in great
part, to the federal government's red tape and gun control laws targeting
law-abiding firearm owners. Ironic as well considering, according to a recent
Ipsos-Reid poll, the vast majority of people in the province finds hunting an
acceptable activity.
The
poll found that over 85 per cent of Ontario residents find hunting acceptable --
50 per cent agreeing that it is completely acceptable to hunt, and 35 per cent
agreeing that hunting is acceptable given certain limitations. Only eight per
cent of those surveyed believed hunting should not occur under any
circumstances. "This is one of the most revealing opinion polls conducted
on public attitudes toward hunters and hunting," said Mark Holmes,
spokesman for the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.
"The high level of public acceptance of hunting is gratifying,
particularly since the public also understands the hunter's role in
conservation."
The
declining number of hunters is not a surprise to the firearm industry.
"The federal government brought in asinine gun legislation that they
said would initially cost $85 million and then be self financing," said Dan
Haycock, president of Shooter's Choice gun room in Waterloo. "Today, the
legislation has cost close to $1 billion and there is no income to offset costs.
"More and more 'fringe hunters' who go out once or twice a year have
quit because of the additional costs and red tape, and most of the 'ma and pa'
firearms operations have been driven out of business for the same reasons."
The
costs Haycock refers to are the regulatory cost of purchasing a hunting rifle,
which has risen to $279. The red tape has held up the processing of firearm
permits for months, ruined hunts and cost millions of dollars in legitimate
sales and tourism dollars.
The
decline is especially evident in waterfowl hunts, many of which are in the
"fringe category," as Haycock puts it. According to the Canadian
Wildlife Service, there were 380,059 Migratory Game Bird Hunting permits issued
in 1966. By 1978, that number had risen to 524,946. That number dropped to
191,444 in 2000. While less is money going into fish and wildlife with the
decline in hunters, motor vehicle accidents in Ontario involving wild animals
have increased, according to Ontario Road Safety annual reports.
Between
1988 and 2000, there were 90,313 motor vehicle accidents involving wild animals
in Ontario. The 3,991 wildlife accidents of 1988 has risen to a record high of
10,388 in 2000. Over the 12-year period, 4,813 wildlife accidents resulted in
personal injury and 57 human fatalities.
Farmers
are feeling the effects brought about by the drop in hunter numbers as well.
The Wildlife Impact Assessment that investigated the economic impact of
wildlife on agriculture indicates that Ontario farmers are finding
wildlife-caused losses to crops and livestock have generally increased over the
last five years. In 1998, wildlife damage cost Ontario farmers over $41 million.
During
the same five years, investment in prevention measures have increased to the
point where they are costing farmers over $7.5 million and over 800,0000 hours
annually in abatement of wildlife damages.
The assessment also showed that farmers viewed an improved link between
hunters and farmers as one of the most effective means of reducing the impacts
of wildlife-caused losses.
Government
red tape, asinine gun legislation and agriculture losses aside, revenues from
the sale of hunting, fishing and trapping licences go into a special purpose
account. The account covers about 70 per cent of all fish and wildlife programs
in Ontario. If the number of
hunters continues to decline, who's going to foot the bill and fill the void in
Ontario's fish and wildlife budget?