february, 2017 strategic policy for bait management in...

February, 2017

Strategic Policy for Bait Management in Ontario

Draft for Public Comment

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction........................................................................2

1.1 Purpose .......................................................................3

1.2 Context ........................................................................3

1.3 Scope and Application .....................................3

1.4 Regulatory Context ........................................... 4

2.0 Permitted Baitfish Species and Possession Limits ...............................................5

2.1 Permitted Baitfish Species ...........................5

2.2 Possession Limits................................................ 6

3.0 Movement of Bait ..........................................................7

3.1 Bait Management Zones ............................... 9

3.2 Exceptions to the Movement of Bait ..............................................10

3.3 Receipts ....................................................................13

4.0 Specific Bait Restrictions ..................................... 14

4.1 Possession of Bait in Native Brook Trout Lakes ........................... 14

4.2 Bait in Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves ....................... 14

4.2.1 Angler Possession .................................. 14

4.2.2 Commercial Bait Harvest .................. 15

4.2.3 Phase-out .................................................... 16

5.0 Personal Harvest .........................................................17

6.0 Storage of Bait ............................................................. 19

6.1 Storage in Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves ........................ 19

7.0 Commercial Bait Operations ...............................21

7.1 Training ......................................................................21

7.2 Equipment ...............................................................21

7.3 Species at Risk (SAR) .................................. 22

7.4 Reporting ............................................................... 22

7.5 Compliance ........................................................... 23

7.6 Commercial Bait Licences ......................... 24

7.6.1 Types and Fees ....................................... 24

7.6.2 Terms and Renewal .............................. 24

7.6.3 Allocation ..................................................... 24

7.6.4 Dormancy .................................................... 26

8.0 Conclusion .......................................................................27

9.0 Glossary ............................................................................28

10.0 Legal References .......................................................30

Appendix A The Provincial Bait Policy Review Process............................................................... 31

Appendix B Fisheries Management Zones (FMZ) ............34

Appendix C Relevant References .................................................35

Table of Figures

Figure 1 Relationship between scale of bait movement, ecological risk and impacts to anglers and bait operators ...............................8

Figure 2 Proposed Bait Management Zones depicting where commercial bait movement, including angler-purchased bait, would be allowed .................................................9

Figure 3 Bait management zones, showing exception (arrows) for outward movement from the Arctic watershed (BMZ A) ................10

Figure 4 Bait management zones showing exception (arrows) for movement out of inland BMZs into the Great Lakes .............. 11

Figure 5 Bait management zones, showing exception (arrows) for movement in and out of the Ottawa River ................................ 12

Figure 6 Movement restrictions of personally harvested bait .................................................................18

1.0

IntroductionOntario’s fisheries resources contribute more than $2.2 billion dollars to

the provincial economy, employ an estimated 41,000 person years annually, are integral to the cultures and ways of life of Indigenous peoples, act as

indicators of environmental quality and provide wholesome food and recreation. There are more than one million anglers in the province, and estimates indicate that approximately 60 to 80 per cent of these use live baitfish at some point

during the year. The harvest and use of live baitfish has been an important part of the fishing industry in Ontario for nearly a century.

Ontario’s commercial bait industry, which has long been the largest in Canada, has a lengthy history. By 1925, there were approximately 1,200 licensed commercial bait operators harvesting and supply-ing bait to anglers across the province. Currently, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) issues approximately 1,100 commercial bait licences annually. MNRF regulates com-mercial bait harvest in the province through the allocation of defined Bait Harvest Areas (BHAs), which specifies where the licensee is authorized to harvest bait. In 2005, the retail value of the bait industry was estimated to be close to $23 million, which supports the multi-million-dollar fishing and tourism industries. In 2010, the bait industry harvested approximately 144 million fish (a large proportion of these from southern Ontario) and 26 million leeches (predominantly harvested from northwestern Ontario).

The management of Ontario’s bait resources has become more challenging due to increasing environmental pressures such as invasive species and diseases that threaten the health of fisheries and aquatic ecosystems.

The harvest, movement and use of bait pose a significant risk to Ontario’s fisheries and bio-diversity, the bait pathway representing one of many vectors contributing to the potential spread of fish-based diseases (e.g., viral hemorrhagic septicemia [VHS]) and invasive species across Ontario. In addition, incidental movement of native species (e.g., Yellow Perch, bass) to waters

where they do not occur naturally can disrupt fish community dynamics in the receiving waterbody, including the extirpation of native species (e.g., Brook Trout).

There are several ways that non-target species and diseases may be introduced through the harvest or use of bait:

• Illegal dumping of bait-bucket contents, which may contain incidentally harvested species, by anglers;

• Escape of incidentally captured non-target species from holding containers used by anglers or commercial operators;

• Transport of non-bait species (e.g., spiny water flea, Eurasian Milfoil) in holding water or on harvesting gear.

There are opportunities for improvement of the existing bait management approach to ensure a robust framework is in place. In addition to the ecological risks associated with the movement of bait, the historical bait management frame-work has been perceived as reactionary, overly complex to administer and relatively ineffective at mitigating risks. The MNRF completed a compre-hensive review of its bait management framework to address these ecological risks while maintaining the social and economic benefits of the sustain-able use and harvest of bait. This Provincial Bait Policy Review evaluated the current bait policies, related to baitfish and leeches, and developed and assessed many options for improving bait

Strategic Policy for Bait Management in Ontario • February 20172

management in the future. The MNRF completed an open and extensive public and stakeholder consultation process to consult on a number of options. For example, an external stakeholder group was established at the onset of the review to help provide input and perspectives on the various options.

This document provides the proposed Strategic Policy for Bait Management in Ontario as a result of the Provincial Bait Policy Review.

1.1 PurposeThe purpose of this strategic policy framework is to provide proposed direction for the sustainable use and harvest of bait (i.e., baitfish and leeches) in Ontario in order to reduce ecological risks while maintaining a viable bait industry.

The proposals outlined in this policy were developed in order to achieve the following four goals:

1. To protect the health of aquatic ecosystems.

2. To enhance the quality of life for Ontarians by providing recreational, social and economic benefits.

3. To conserve the resource and maintain a viable bait industry.

4. To create policies that are adaptable, effective, consistent across the province and simple to implement.

Achieving these goals is expected to result in the following desired outcomes:

1. Reduced ecological risks associated with the movement and use of bait;

2. Maintenance of healthy fisheries across the province;

3. Maintenance or improvement of eco-logical integrity in provincial parks and conservation reserves;

4. Reduced complexity of the current bait management regime;

5. Increased business certainty for the bait industry.

1.2 ContextHorizons 2020 (2016), Biodiversity: it’s in our Nature and the Provincial Fish Strategy: Fish for the Future provide the strategic policy dir-ection for sustainably managing the province’s natural resources. The proposed direction pre-sented in this document is consistent with the guidance in these over-arching strategies as it aligns with broad biodiversity goals and threat reduction objectives.

The bait proposals found within this document were developed through a comprehensive review of the MNRF’s current and proposed bait poli-cies, including engagement with First Nations and Métis communities and organizations, and extensive stakeholder consultation (For an over-view of the Bait Policy Review process, please refer to Appendix A.)

1.3 Scope and ApplicationFor the purpose of this policy, ‘bait’ refers to both baitfish and leeches (live or dead). It does not pertain to crayfish, frogs or worms.

The direction outlined in this policy applies provincially, unless otherwise stated and will not eliminate, but rather complement and add to existing bait use or harvest regulations for specified lakes and regions, such as the exist-ing prohibition against possession and use in Fisheries Management Zone (FMZ) 1 and com-mercial harvest in FMZ 9 and artificial lures only in Quetico Provincial Park.

This policy framework also would establish a new direction for the management of bait in provin-cial parks and conservation reserves, and would replace previous direction for the use of bait for recreational fishing and commercial bait harvest from the following sources:

• Ontario Provincial Parks: Planning and Management Policies (1978 and 1992 update)

• Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy (1999)

• Permitted Use Policy Amendment (2010) (also referred to as “Ontario Parks Phase Out Policy”)

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry 3

Ancillary activities that are incidental to angling with bait or commercial bait harvest, such as access or camping, are not addressed by this policy. These ancillary activities must comply with the associated regulations and be consistent with relevant policies that apply to the activity.

Similarly, aspects related to how the bait pro-gram is administered will be addressed in the MNRF’s operational policies.

1.4 Regulatory ContextOntario’s regulations governing the provincial management of bait are established under two key pieces of legislation:

• the federal Fisheries Act, implemented through the Ontario Fishery Regulations, 2007 (OFR); and

• the provincial Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 (FWCA).

In addition, provincial policies and guidelines provide operational direction in managing com-mercial bait licences.

The Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, 2006 (PPCRA) establishes the legal mandate for the planning and management of provincial parks and conservation reserves in Ontario. The proposals in this framework for bait management in these protected areas is con-sistent with the purpose and objectives of the PPCRA and with the principle to maintain or restore ecological integrity.

It should be noted that this policy includes a number of proposals that are not contained in existing regulations. New regulations or amend-ments to existing regulations will need to be proposed in order to implement some of the proposals set out below. Although the majority of the proposals will require regulatory changes that will apply to everyone, some that only apply to commercial licence holders (e.g., commer-cial gear restrictions in multi-use BHAs) can be implemented through amendments to existing licence conditions. Proposals that are to be implemented through amendments to regula-tions would not come into effect until regulatory processes are completed and are subject to approvals by the appropriate authority. In some cases, these processes may take from one to three years to complete.

In summary, the remainder of this document will outline the proposals regarding the harvest, use and movement of bait by both anglers and commercial operators as part of the strategy to reduce ecological risk and the complexity of the current management regime and provide business certainty to the industry. Many of the individual proposals addressed in this docu-ment are intended to reduce ecological risk at different stages of the bait pathway. Together they provide a cumulative approach to reducing ecological risk while still allowing bait to be used and moved.


2.0

Permitted Baitfish Species and Possession Limits

2.1 Permitted Baitfish SpeciesThere are over 165 fish species known to occur in Ontario. While many of these are native to Ontario, others have been introduced or have expanded their range naturally. This relatively high fish diversity often makes it challenging to distinguish common bait species from sport fish,

invasive fish or species at risk. Further, limit-ing the list of species that can be used as bait to those that can be easily distinguished from invasive species or sport fish would reduce the risk of movement of non-target species.

Currently, the list of fish species that may be used as bait is set out in the Ontario Fishery Regulations. The MNRF is proposing to revise that list, so that

the following 33 species could be used as bait:

Minnows

• Blacknose Dace• Blacknose Shiner• Blackchin Shiner• Bluntnose Minnow• Brassy Minnow• Central Stoneroller• Common Shiner• Creek Chub• Emerald Shiner• Fallfish• Fathead Minnow• Finescale Dace• Golden Shiner

• Hornyhead Chub• Lake Chub• Longnose Dace• Mimic Shiner• Northern Redbelly Dace• Pearl Dace• Redfin Shiner• River Chub• Rosyface Shiner• Sand Shiner• Spotfin Shiner• Spottail Shiner• Striped Shiner

Suckers

• Longnose Sucker• White Sucker

Other

• Banded Killifish• Brook Silverside• Central Mudminnow• Lake Herring• Trout-Perch

photo by A. Dextrase


These 33 species would represent the only spe-cies that could legally be used or possessed as live baitfish. Maintaining a wide range of eligible baitfish species is intended to enable anglers’ and commercial operators’ flexibility to use locally common species. Certain fish species such as sculpins, darters and sticklebacks, are not included on the list as they are often con-fused with invasive species (e.g., Round Goby), and are typically not desirable species, con-sequently having limited value to harvesters and dealers. In addition, minimizing the number of species on the list would help to simplify messa-ges and education regarding legal bait species (i.e., if it has spines or teeth, it isn’t a legal bait species). Banded Killifish and Brook Silverside have been added to the list, as these species are relatively abundant and ubiquitous throughout the lower Great Lakes.

As noted above, the eligible baitfish species are regulated under the OFR and proposals to amend the OFR would be required to update the list.

2.2 Possession LimitsPossession limits can be a useful tool to help manage fisheries by ensuring the sustainable use of the resource and to mitigate potential risks.

The following possession limits will continue to apply:

Anglers may only possess up to 120 baitfish and 120 leeches.

These limits apply to both purchased and personally-harvested bait and have been in place since 2000. These limits were established to help address concerns related to bait wast-age (i.e., harvesting/purchasing more than they will use). In addition, allowing anglers to possess more than 120 baitfish/leeches could increase the chances of anglers illegally dumping their unused bait into the waterbody they are fish-ing, thereby increasing the risk of transferring non-target species and pathogens. These pos-session limits are intended to prevent anglers from harvesting/buying more than they need.

Commercial bait licence holders will not be restricted in the amount of bait that they can possess.

With limited exceptions, commercial bait har-vesters and dealers have never been restricted in the amount of bait they can harvest or pos-sess for sale. Maintaining this flexibility enables operators to possess enough bait to supply their customers’ needs and to effectively run and operate their business.

The commercial salting of bait will remain prohibited.

These possession limits are currently set out under the OFR and the FWCA and will not require any regulatory amendments.


3.0

Movement of BaitThis section details the policies pertaining to the movement of

commercially harvested bait (including angler-purchased bait) in Ontario.

The spread of invasive, non-target species and diseases may be facilitated through the movement of bait. Introduction of new species, whether invasive or species native to other parts of the province (e.g., Yellow Perch, bass), have the potential to disrupt these established ecosystems. The spread of these organisms and pathogens may occur through various mechan-isms, including:

1. The misidentification of an illegal species of fish believed to be a legal species by the harvester;

2. The incidental harvest of a non-target species mixed in with the bait but not removed prior to use;

3. The transfer of microscopic organisms, plant fragments or diseases that are on the fish, in the water that is used to transfer the bait, or attached to the harvest gear.

Although Section 28 of the OFR prohibits dump-ing the contents of bait buckets (including the water holding the bait) into a waterbody or within 30m of a waterbody, recent studies have shown that considerable numbers of anglers continue to dump their bait into the waterbody they are fish-ing, thereby perpetuating the risk of spreading non-target species and disease.

Given that an estimated 4.2 million angling trips take place each year in Ontario involving live bait, with many of these occurring over distances

greater than 500km from the bait source, this large scale movement of bait is accompanied by a high degree of ecological risk. This risk is magnified considerably given that many of the ecological concerns, including invasive species and disease, are more prevalent in the southern region of the province, where a large portion of Ontario’s anglers are located and purchasing bait.

Consequently, the degree to which bait is allowed to be moved from its point of harvest to where it is ultimately used is a critical component of man-aging ecological risk. While restricting movement to a very small geographic scale, such as the lake where it was caught, greatly reduces eco-logical risk, it considerably limits the flexibility for anglers and commercial operators as to where they can buy and sell bait. For example, it would not be feasible to have a commercial retail shop at every lake in Ontario.

As shown in figure 1, the degree of ecological risk increases as the scale of movement increases; however, the impact to the bait industry and anglers increases as the scale of movement decreases. It should be noted that not all bait use and harvest activities pose ecological risks, including using bait in the same waterbody where it was harvested.


Figure 1

Relationship between scale of bait movement, ecological risk and impacts to anglers and bait operators

HIGHEST IMPACT

Lake/River (Waterbody)

HIGHEST RISK

LOWEST IMPACT

LOWEST RISK

AN

GL

ER

+ B

AIT

IND

US

TR

Y IM

PA

CT

S

ECOLOGICAL RISK

Watershed

Fisheries Management Zone (FMZ)

Multiple FMZs

Region/Basin

Province

INCREASING SCALE OF MANAGEMENT


3.1 Bait Management ZonesTo help address the issues identified above, MNRF is proposing the following measures to specify how commercial operators and anglers would be allowed to move their bait in Ontario.

Movement of commercial bait, including commercially purchased bait, would be restricted to the Bait Management Zones (BMZs) shown in figure 2.

Figure 2

Proposed Bait Management Zones depicting where commercial bait movement, including angler-purchased bait, would be allowed.

BMZs are distinct areas of the province within which anglers and commercial operators may move their bait. Anglers and commercial oper-ators will only be allowed to move their bait within a specific zone (area of the same colour in figure 2), with a few exceptions identified in section 3.2.

The Great Lakes are not included within the BMZ framework (figure 2) as there are no BHAs in the majority of the Great Lakes, the exceptions being Lake Erie and a few localized areas in Lakes Huron and Lake Ontario. In these situations, commercial bait can be moved inland to the adjacent BMZ (i.e., BMZ F). Bait can also be moved into these Great Lakes as per the exceptions in section 3.2.

These BMZs have been based upon the established provincial Fisheries Management Zone (FMZ) framework (Appendix B); in most cases, a few FMZs are amalgamated to form a single BMZ. Incorporation of the FMZ bound-aries as the framework for the zones has added benefits; these boundaries are easily identifiable on the ground (unlike watershed divides) and are regulated, well established and understood by anglers. The MNRF recognizes the challenges that these movement restrictions may impose on some commercial operators and anglers.

The BMZ approach provides an intermediate scale of movement that addresses the four goals identified in section 1.1. This approach minimizes ecological risk and maintains a viable


bait industry while providing flexibility to anglers and industry. The adoption of this landscape approach is consistent with MNRF strategic direction and the MNRF’s current management of recreational fisheries in Ontario.

Subject to the exceptions set out below, bait would remain within the same BMZ from which it was harvested and not be allowed to cross BMZ borders. As such, commercial operators would not be allowed to have their bait tested in order to facilitate movement out of the BMZ where the bait was harvested.

The foundational concept of utilizing BMZs to limit bait movement acknowledges that bait species and any other organism that may be transferred via the bait pathway have the potential to move throughout the BMZ. As a result, existing restrictions to commer-cial bait movement (i.e., VHS and Lake Simcoe Management Zones) would no longer apply. It is intended that this new approach will provide

increased business certainty to the bait industry across Ontario, allowing commercial operators to make the necessary adjustments and invest-ments to grow and maintain their businesses.

MNRF anticipates pursuing regulatory amend-ments to the OFR and under the FWCA to implement movement restrictions, including exceptions outlined in section 3.2.

3.2 Exceptions to the Movement of Bait

In an effort to provide increased flexibility to commercial operators and anglers, while still reducing ecological risk, MNRF is proposing that bait movement would be limited to within a BMZ, with the following exceptions:

Bait would be allowed to move out of BMZ A into adjacent BMZs (i.e., BMZ B, C, D as shown in figure 3).

Figure 3

Bait management zones, showing exception (arrows) for outward movement from the Arctic watershed (BMZ A).


BMZ A encompasses, for the most part, the Hudson Bay/James Bay watershed. This region has very few documented occurrences of invasive species of fishes, plants or invertebrates. Therefore the risk of transferring invasive species, including invasive fish pathogens, through the movement of bait out of the zone is considered to be low. In addition, allowing the movement of bait from BMZ A into adjacent BMZs B, C and D would provide more flexibility for both anglers and commercial operators to address supply-demand issues in these more remote areas. Bait would not be allowed to move from adjacent BMZs into BMZ A, however, as these more southern BMZs have much greater prevalence of invasive species and disease and should be isolated from BMZ A as much as possible.

Bait from BMZs C, D, E and F would be allowed within the adjacent Great Lake, as shown in figure 4.

In general, the lower Great Lakes (i.e., Lakes Erie and Ontario) have a much higher prevalence of aquatic invasive species and disease than do inland sources. Given that lakes and rivers flow downstream from inland sources into the Great Lakes, organisms and pathogens that occur inland are typically found in the Great Lakes as well. Therefore, there is minimal ecological risk associated with the movement of bait from inland BMZs into the adjacent Great Lake. Allowing bait from inland sources would provide increased flex-ibility for anglers wishing to use live bait in the Great Lakes. However, bait cannot be transported overland through another BMZ for use in a Great Lake. For example, bait can be moved from BMZ D into Georgian Bay but not south overland into Lake Ontario.

Islands that are located within Lakes Huron, Erie and Ontario (e.g., Manitoulin Island) will be cov-ered by the movement restrictions of BMZ F.

Figure 4

Bait management zones showing exception (arrows) for movement out of inland BMZs into the Great Lakes.


Bait from BMZs A, D, E and F would be allowed in the Ottawa River (including Lake Timiskaming) (figure 5); however, bait would not be allowed to move across another inland BMZ to reach the Ottawa River. Commercial bait harvested in the Ottawa River must remain in the adjacent BMZ.

In Ontario, the Ottawa River extends from the St. Lawrence River to Lake Timiskaming. Due to its close proximity to the St. Lawrence River, the southern reaches of the Ottawa River have a higher potential for containing invasive species and diseases. However, the river is fragmented

by nine large impassable barriers (some of these falling close to the BMZ boundaries) that con-siderably limit the movement of fish (and anglers) between reaches, providing a high degree of isolation. These barriers will assist in the manage-ment of ecological risk, as they will limit anglers from moving bait throughout the full length of the river. As a result, anglers using live bait in a particular section of the Ottawa River will need to use bait that originated from the BMZ where they accessed the river. Commercial operators that have Bait Harvest Areas (BHAs) within the Ottawa River will be allowed to move their bait inland, into the adjacent BMZ for distribution (similar to the exception provided for commercial harvesters with BHAs in the Great Lakes).

Figure 5

Bait management zones, showing exception (arrows) for movement in and out of the Ottawa River.


3.3 ReceiptsIn order to ensure compliance with the prescribed movement restrictions as well as to be able to minimize the illegal sale and non-reporting of bait, the MNRF will require the following:

MNRF is proposing new require-ments be established that require all transactions involving bait, to be accompanied by a receipt that clearly states the name of the seller/business, location, and date of where and when the bait was sold. This applies to all transactions including those between commercial operators (e.g., harvester and retailer) and from retailer to angler.

All those involved in transactions, including bait harvesters, retailers and anglers, would be required to retain a copy of the receipt.

Anglers would be required to retain the receipt in their possession for two weeks in order to demonstrate that the bait was purchased within the respective BMZ within the pre-vious two weeks. Anglers would be required to use or lawfully dispose of all commercially harvested bait within two weeks of purchase.

As with current regulations, live bait must not be disposed of into or within 30m of a waterbody.

MNRF anticipates pursuing regulatory amendments under the FWCA to implement this proposal.


4.0

Specific Bait Restrictions

4.1 Possession of Bait in Native Brook Trout Lakes

Brook Trout are one of the most sought after sport fish in Ontario; however, they are also extremely sensitive to changes in their fish com-munities and their habitat. Brook Trout generally occur in very simple fish communities where there may only be a few other fish species present. As a result, when new species, such as an invasive species (e.g., Round Goby) or even species native to other parts of Ontario (e.g., Yellow Perch, Smallmouth Bass) establish in a Brook Trout lake, this can have devastating consequences on the resident Brook Trout population. Recent evidence from provincial monitoring programs has shown that Brook Trout populations across Ontario are being lost, and that some of these losses can be attributed to the introduction of new species.

Commercial harvesting activities also have the potential to impact Brook Trout communities through the spread of non-target species in or attached to gear, the escapement from storage cribs, or through excessive harvest of bait that act as a source of prey for Brook Trout.

The following proposal would apply to native Brook Trout lakes:

MNRF is proposing that the harvest and possession of bait be prohibited in native Brook Trout lakes.

This proposal is intended to target lakes with native populations of Brook Trout and does not apply to stocked lakes (e.g., Put-Grow-Take fish-eries) or lakes where Brook Trout no longer occur. In some regions of Ontario (e.g., FMZ 15), the possession of bait has already been prohibited in many Brook Trout lakes. This proposal helps to achieve consistency across the province. To iden-tify which lakes these restrictions would apply to, the MNRF will develop and consult on a list that outlines the lakes that are considered ‘native’

under this proposal. It is intended that this proposal would not apply to Lake Superior or rivers and streams with Brook Trout.

MNRF anticipates pursuing regulatory amend-ments both to the OFR and under the FWCA to implement restrictions on the possession of bait in native Brook Trout lakes.

4.2 Bait in Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves

Ontario’s system of provincial parks and con-servation reserves is a cornerstone of biodiversity conservation in the province. Provincial parks and conservation reserves are part of a landscape approach for protecting and maintaining aqua-tic ecosystem diversity, connectivity, structure and function, including fish habitat. The use and commercial harvest of bait poses significant risks to the ecological integrity of provincial parks and conservation reserves and their role in conserv-ing Ontario’s aquatic biodiversity. The following proposals are intended to reduce the risks to the ecological integrity of provincial parks and conservation reserves, while maintaining oppor-tunities for the recreational use and commercial harvest of bait where consistent with the object-ives of the PPCRA.

4.2.1 Angler PossessionProposals regarding the use of bait would apply within the boundaries of provincial parks and conservation reserves that are regulated under the PPCRA. Where appropriate, limiting the use of bait in provincial parks and conserva-tion reserves is a key strategy for reducing the ecological risks to these protected areas. The following proposals are intended to limit the eco-logical risks while providing opportunities for the sustainable use of bait in compatible provincial parks and conservation reserves.


The primary purpose of wilderness, nature reserve, natural environment, waterway and cultural heritage class parks is to protect eco-systems while offering a variety of opportunities to experience nature and learn about Ontario’s natural and cultural heritage. Prohibiting the use of bait would help to protect the aquatic eco-systems in these classes of provincial parks and is consistent with their intended uses for eco-logically sustainable low-impact recreation.

MNRF is proposing that the possession of bait in wilderness, nature reserve, natural environment, waterway and cultural heritage class provincial parks be prohibited.

Of the six classes of provincial parks, recreational class parks offer the greatest range of ecologic-ally sustainable outdoor activities. Allowing the use of bait for angling in recreational class parks is more consistent with the purpose and intended uses of this class of parks.

Allowing the continued use of bait for angling is also more compatible with PPCRA objectives to provide opportunities for traditional outdoor heritage activities in conservation reserves.

The possession of bait in recreational class parks and conservation reserves is to be generally allowed.

For clarity, restrictions such as prohibitions on bait use and bait harvest in native Brook Trout lakes would apply in all provincial parks and conservation reserves.

MNRF anticipates pursuing regulatory amendments to the OFR and under the FWCA and PPCRA to implement restrictions on the possession of bait in provincial parks.

4.2.2 Commercial Bait HarvestThe following proposals provide direction for the commercial harvest of bait in regulated provincial parks and conservation reserves. In accordance with interim protection policies in the Guide for Crown Land Use Planning (2011), these proposals will also apply within proposed or recommended provincial parks or conservation reserves, given these activities would require a disposition.

This Provincial Bait Policy establishes a uniform provincial approach to the management of commercial bait harvest in provincial parks and conservation reserves that are consistent with and complementary to proposals for personal bait possession and harvest. The following pro-posals would limit the risks of commercial bait harvest to the provincial parks and conservation reserves system while allowing for sustainable harvest, provision of local bait supplies and associated economic benefits.

MNRF is proposing that commer-cial bait harvest be prohibited in wilderness, nature reserve, natural environment, waterway and cultural heritage class provincial parks.

Prohibiting commercial bait harvest in these parks will reduce the ecological risks associ-ated with this activity and is consistent with the primary purpose and objectives of these park classes. The prohibition on commercial bait har-vest in these parks would apply to regular and tourism harvester licences.

Commercial bait harvest in provincial parks would continue to be generally allowed in recreational class provincial parks and conservation reserves.

Ecologically sustainable commercial bait har-vest is acceptable in conservation reserves and recreational class provincial parks in a manner where it does not impact protected area values (Indigenous, cultural, ecological or recreational). Where commercial bait harvest is currently pro-hibited in management plans for recreational class parks and conservation reserves, it will continue to be prohibited. Additionally, pro-posed restrictions such as prohibitions on bait use and bait harvest in native Brook Trout lakes will also apply in all provincial parks and con-servation reserves. Measures to avoid or reduce impacts to significant values may be identified as licence conditions.

MNRF anticipates pursuing amendments to the OFR to implement restrictions on the commercial harvest of bait in provincial parks.


4.2.3 Phase-outImplementation of prohibitions on existing commercial bait harvest activities in some park classes will be delayed to allow time for harvesters to adjust their business plans.

MNRF is proposing that existing com-mercial bait harvest be phased out of wilderness, nature reserve, natural environment, waterway and cultural heritage class parks in the following manner:

• Existing licensees may continue to commercially harvest bait in waters of these park classes for five years after the date of approval of this policy.

New licensees will not be allowed to operate within wilderness, nature reserve, natural environ-ment, waterway and cultural heritage class provincial parks. Commercial bait harvest would be allowed to continue in conservation reserves and recreational class parks in bait harvest areas (BHA) that are transferred or reallocated.

MNRF anticipates pursuing amendments both to the OFR and under the FWCA to implement the phase-out of commercial bait harvesting in provincial parks.


5.0

Personal HarvestThis section details the proposals pertaining to the personal harvest and

associated movement of bait in Ontario. Many anglers appreciate the flexibility of being able to harvest their own bait, because of personal

preference or because the nearest retail locations may be considerable distance from their home or fishing destination. Surveys have shown that 30 to 50 per cent of Ontario anglers who fish with live baitfish harvest

their own bait at least some time during the year.

It has been shown that, in general, Ontario anglers experience great difficulty distinguish-ing legal baitfish species from illegal species. Consequently, personally-harvested bait brings with it an increased risk of moving invasive and other non-target species across the landscape.

Resident anglers with a valid sport fishing licence will continue to be allowed to harvest their own bait; however, will be restricted in the degree to which self-harvested bait can be moved (figure 6).

MNRF is proposing that personally harvested bait may not be transported beyond the waterbody where it was caught (i.e., no overland transport), with the following exception:

• In BMZ A, B, C, and D, personally- harvested bait may be moved beyond the waterbody where it was caught, provided that the angler possesses the appropriate docu-mentation allowing the overland transport and the bait stays within the BMZ where it was harvested.

• Documentation may be in the form of either a personal harvest licence or a personal log.

• Anglers would not be allowed to move personally harvested bait in more than one BMZ of their choosing. (Note anglers may still personally harvest bait in other zones but would not be allowed to transport overland).

• Bait that is personally harvested from the Great Lakes and the Ottawa River (including Lake Timiskaming) would not be allowed to be transported overland (i.e., would be required to remain in the waterbody where it was harvested).

• These exceptions do not apply to conservation reserves and recrea-tional class parks within these zones.


Figure 6

Movement restrictions of personally harvested bait.

The difference in restrictions between northern Ontario (i.e., BMZ A, B, C and D) and southern Ontario reflects the differences in ecological risk between these two parts of the province. Invasive species and pathogens are much more prevalent in the south, and therefore additional restrictions are needed to avoid introducing species and dis-ease into new waterbodies.

Although anglers in northern Ontario would be provided more flexibility in terms of where they could move personally harvested bait, this high-risk activity would require documentation that allows them to harvest their own bait.

The requirement for some form of documentation to personally harvest bait in northern Ontario provides a number of benefits, including:

1. Reducing ecological risk by limiting the movement of personally harvested bait;

2. Enabling the MNRF to increase awareness and education, which could include mailing of awareness material on how to identify legal bait species to those actively harvesting their own bait;

3. Increasing the MNRF’s understanding of the number of individuals harvesting their own bait and in what areas of the province this occurs.

Limiting personal harvest to a single zone helps to ensure that bait is not illegally transported across movement boundaries.

MNRF anticipates pursuing amendments to both the OFR and under the FWCA to implement movement restrictions related to personally harvested bait.


6.0

Storage of BaitThis section details the proposals pertaining to the angler and

commercial storage of bait in Ontario and specifically in provincial parks and conservation reserves.

Both anglers and commercial operators com-monly store their bait in waterbodies. Anglers commonly store their bait in a bait bucket that is often tied to a boat, dock or to the shoreline, whereas commercial operators often use large cribs. The in-water storage of commercial bait is considered a high-risk activity due to the large volumes of bait being stored, often originat-ing from various waterbodies. In-water storage has the potential for the bait to escape from the holding container or to transfer diseases. In addition, the water in which the bait is trans-ported is often transferred with the fish into the bait bucket or crib, and subsequently into the receiving waterbody. This water may contain microscopic plants and organisms, some of which may be invasive. While the act of emptying the contents of a bait container (e.g., bait bucket), including the water within, directly into a water-body is illegal, many anglers continue to do so despite the risk.

Provincially, the storage of bait, including but not limited to bait buck-ets and cribs, would be consistent with the applicable scale of movement, as outlined below:

• Bait from BMZ A, B, C and D (both commercial and personally harvested) is to be stored in the same BMZ where it was purchased or harvested or consistent with the identified movement exceptions in section 3.2

• Commercial bait from BMZ E and F is to be stored in the same BMZ where it was purchased or harvested or consistent with the identified movement exceptions in section 3.2

• Personally harvested bait from BMZ E and F (and the Great Lakes and Ottawa River) is to be stored within the same waterbody from which it was harvested.

Additional advice pertaining to the storage of commercial bait will be provided in subsequent best management practice documents (see section 7.2).

6.1 Storage in Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves

Following the direction for the movement of personally harvested live bait outlined above:

The storage of an angler’s person-ally harvested bait from waterbodies in recreational class provincial parks and conservation reserves would be restricted to the waterbody where the bait was harvested.

Storage of bait by commercial harvesters in provincial parks and conservation reserves is a high-risk activity due to the potential for bait to escape from holding devices and for invasive species or pathogens to be introduced with the water used to transport bait.


As per the PPCRA, no person shall use or occupy land in a provincial park or conservation reserve except in accordance with the Act and its regu-lations; occupational authority is required to occupy land; and a person is prohibited from constructing, expanding or placing a structure or thing without a work permit.

The commercial storage of bait in conservation reserves and provincial parks would be prohibited, with limited exceptions.

The storage of commercially harvested bait may be authorized through an occupational authority and a work permit issued pursuant to section 14(1) and section 22 of the PPCRA, only if all of the following conditions are met:

• There are no reasonable alternative locations for storage outside of the recreational class provincial park or conservation reserve.

• This may include consideration of the pro-portion of the bait harvest area that is within a conservation reserve or recreational class park, remoteness and accessibility of harvest locations, distance and travel time to the licensee’s facility, and the availability of alternative Crown or patented lands.

• The storage location is in a recreational class provincial park or conservation reserve within an allocated bait harvest area and is for the use of the licenced commercial harvester.

• The storage location within a recreation class park or conservation reserve must be in a BHA allocated to the commercial harvester.

• The bait is stored in the same quaternary watershed and in the same recreational class park or conservation reserve where it was caught. and;

• All necessary authorizations under the PPCRA are issued to permit the activity.

Authorizations may include additional conditions to avoid or reduce ecological risks or impacts to protected area values.



7.0

Commercial Bait OperationsThe following suite of proposals pertains to licensed commercial

bait harvesters and dealers.

7.1 TrainingThe movement of bait from its place of harvest to the place where it is used involves numer-ous individuals including harvester, designates, wholesalers, dealers, retail employees and anglers, all of whom are responsible for ensur-ing that non-bait species are not incidentally harvested and transferred to new waterbodies. Commercial bait operators play a pivotal role in helping to minimize the transfer of non-target species and pathogens across the landscape.

The following proposals are intended to increase industry’s awareness of the potential risks of moving non-target species and actions to pre-vent their spread.

Commercial bait harvesters and dealers would be required to take a standardized training course, to be administered by the MNRF.

This training course is intended to be relatively short, with a focus on increasing harvester and dealer awareness of non-target species, includ-ing invasive species, species at risk (where appropriate) and identifying actions to prevent their spread. This training may be similar to the existing training currently required by commercial bait harvesters. It is intended that this training be completed either online or through the MNRF licence issuer.

In addition to harvesters and dealers, designates listed under a commer-cial harvester’s licence would be required to take a training course (to be developed by the MNRF), which can be administered either online or by the commercial bait harvester.

Designates would be required to have taken the training, prior to being added to a licence.

Those listed as designates on a licence are allowed to harvest bait on the licensee’s behalf. In some cases, the designate performs a large portion of the harvesting under the licence. As a result, it is reasonable to require designates to have some degree of training to ensure that they are also aware of potential risks and actions to minimize the spread of non-target species. It will still be the responsibility of the licence holder to ensure that all employees and other individuals involved in their operation are aware of their licence conditions as well as the rules and regu-lations that apply to the sale and harvest of bait.

The implementation of training requirements would be developed in consultation with the industry.

7.2 EquipmentThe MNRF limits the type of commercial equip-ment allowed, length/size of mesh, number of traps and other types of commercial gear in order to help prevent impacts to the resource (e.g., overharvest, escapement from storage, etc.). These gear restrictions are limited through licence conditions. For historical reasons, licence conditions have varied across the province. In some cases, harvesters in the same multi-use BHA have very different licence conditions gov-erning the type and amounts of gear they are allowed to use. This lack of standardized gear requirements results in complex licence condi-tions that provide differing levels of protection for the resource and are complicated to administer.


The following would generally apply to commer-cial gear restrictions:

Licences for exclusive-use BHAs would not be restricted in the type or amount of gear that can be used.

In multi-use BHAs, the amount and type of gear allowed would be stan-dardized among all licensees.

MNRF would work with commer-cial bait operators to develop a Best Management Practices (BMP) Guide for bait harvesting and storage.

The development of a BMP guide, through collab-oration between the MNRF and the bait industry, would help to educate harvesters and promote industry-supported methods. The BMP will address aspects related to gear types, appropri-ate mesh sizes, storage locations, and methods to minimize impacts on species at risk and their habitats. It is hoped that this would promote more consistent and standardized use of gear and methods used in bait harvesting operations.

In multi-use BHA’s, allowable equipment and gear would be implemented through conditions on the harvester’s commercial bait licence.

7.3 Species at Risk (SAR)Ontario is home to over 40 different fish and mussel species at risk, most of these occurring only in the southern part of the province. Species listed as endangered or threatened on the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List, as well as their habitat, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 2007. The list of proposed permitted baitfish (section 2.1) does not include any species that are listed as endangered, threat-ened or special concern under the ESA.

Some of the habitats that support these aqua-tic species at risk also produce high densities of baitfish, and therefore, may be impacted by bait harvesting operations. Some species at risk can be easily misidentified as legal baitfish and as such may be susceptible to incidental harvest. As specified under the ESA (O. Reg. 242/08) if a harvester incidentally captures an endangered

or threatened species, it is to be immediately returned to the waterbody unharmed.

The following approaches are intended to help minimize adverse impacts of bait harvesting operations on aquatic species at risk:

Develop and encourage the use of Best Management Practices (BMP) for commercial bait operators, with a focus on approaches and methods to reduce impacts on aquatic species at risk and their habitats.

Integrate species at risk awareness and education, including BMP guid-ance identified above, into mandatory industry training sessions for harvest-ers with BHAs in southern Ontario.

The SAR BMP guidance can form a chapter of the larger BMP document outlined in section 7.2 (Equipment). The BMP would address aspects related to appropriate times during the day and year to be harvesting in SAR habitats, gear modifications that may reduce mortality, meth-ods to reduce impacts on habitat, etc. It should be emphasized that the BMP guide would be developed in collaboration with industry.

As outlined in section 7.1, commercial bait har-vesters and dealers are to complete a training session with the purpose of increasing awareness of the risk of spreading non-target species and methods to help reduce these risks. This training session would be modified for harvesters that have BHAs in regions where SAR occur (e.g., southern Ontario) to include a focus on spe-cies at risk and methods to minimize harvesting impacts on these species and their habitats (i.e., methods outlined in the BMP).

7.4 ReportingRecord keeping and reporting by commercial operators is a tool used by the MNRF to effect-ively manage the bait resource. Submission of annual reports outlining the amount of bait har-vested in a BHA and the amount of bait sold to anglers helps the MNRF to understand the degree of harvest, industry dynamics and the value of the industry.


Mandatory recording of harvest and sale infor-mation into daily logbooks provides benefits to both operators and the MNRF. These provide a business record for operators while also acting as a tool that may be used during inspections by enforcement personnel to help identify where the illegal sale of bait may be occurring. However, the current reporting structure (i.e., logbooks) is lim-ited in its ability to track bait movement from the point of harvest to the point of sale, limiting the MNRF’s ability to promote compliance.

The following is intended to increase the effectiveness and transparency of reporting requirements.

All commercial bait licence holders would be required to document in their MNRF prescribed logbooks all bait transactions between licence holders, including when the transfer occurred, the quantity of bait transferred and to/from whom bait is purchased/received and sold.

Commercial bait harvesters will continue to be required to document in their logbooks the date and amount of bait harvested in a specific BHA. Commercial bait licence holders will continue to be required to complete an Annual Report for Commercial Bait Harvesting or Dealing that documents the amount of bait harvested or sold at the retail level (to the angler).

The MNRF will investigate ways to improve the efficiency of reporting for operators, including options for online reporting or combining log-books and annual reporting.

The current structure of the bait reporting pro-cess does not enable tracking of bait from the point of harvest to the place of sale. In combin-ation with the mandatory issuance or receipts, more effective reporting (i.e., recording all trans-actions) will allow for increased transparency and accountability.

The MNRF recognizes the time commitment for operators to submit annual reports and enter information into logbooks. As a result, the MNRF is committed to looking at options, includ-ing online reporting, to help minimize reporting efforts for operators.

The requirement to keep a logbook in a form required by the Minister is currently set out in a regulation under the FWCA, and it is not anticipated that additional amendments to the regulation would be required.

7.5 ComplianceMost commercial bait operators are diligent and respectful of the policies and regulations governing bait in Ontario. Non-compliance for commercial bait operators includes a range of possible infractions, but is generally breach of licence conditions or violations of regulations under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 and the Fisheries Act (Ontario Fishery Regulations, 2007). Generally, non-compliance includes operational violations (e.g., the pos-session of non-bait species) and administrative violations (e.g., failure to properly complete daily logbooks). In some cases, the MNRF also has the authority to revoke, amend or refuse to issue a licence; however, there are currently no clear criteria for taking such action.

The following proposals are intended to clearly establish consequences that would promote com-pliance among commercial bait licence holders:

The MNRF would establish a policy-based compliance framework that will outline when a commercial bait licence should be revoked, suspended or reissued.

The compliance framework would be based on the concept of a demerit point system, whereby major infractions, such as transporting bait across a BMZ or harvesting from another person’s BHA, are heavily penalized. Minor infractions, such as logbook errors, would result in fewer demerit points.

This compliance framework could be similar in concept to that of the Ontario driver’s licence. For example, in the event that a licence holder is convicted of an infraction, points would count against the licence (equal to the severity of the infraction). A licence holder who accumulates a


certain amount of points in a given time period, would have their licence suspended or revoked. An operator that has accumulated points but has demonstrated actions to ensure compliance over a specified time period, would have those demerit points rescinded. The MNRF will develop this compliance framework in consultation with the industry.

The implementation of a compliance framework would be established under operational policies that provide direction to district managers as to when licences should be suspended or revoked.

7.6 Commercial Bait LicencesThe following section pertains to commercial bait licences. In the following sections, where new direction is being set, these changes will be established through revisions to internal oper-ational policies and will not require any regulatory amendments.

7.6.1 Types and FeesOntario’s baitfish and leeches are a public resource. These resources provide a return to the Crown and subsequent benefits to the people of Ontario. Licence fees under the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act help to fund the Fish and Wildlife Special Purpose Account (SPA). SPA funds directly support fish and wildlife management in Ontario. Currently, bait licence fees and BHA fees offset a very lim-ited portion of the administration costs of the provincial bait program and were last increased in 1999.

The MNRF is not proposing any changes to licence types or to the existing fee structure for licences or BHAs at this time; however, the MNRF is committing to a comprehensive licensing review.

This licensing review would assess which licence types are still appropriate and would recommend an appropriate fee structure to help offset some of the costs associated with administering the provincial bait program.

7.6.2 Terms and RenewalAny individual who is harvesting or selling bait (i.e., baitfish and leeches) is required to have a commercial bait licence. These licences are administered by the MNRF and are to be renewed annually on January 1st. Currently, the December timeframe for licence renewals coincides with the industry ramping up for the ice-fishing season and is often an inconvenience. The following proposal is intended to provide more flexibility for industry while reducing admin-istration time to renew commercial bait licences.

Commercial bait licences would be valid for a period of up to five years from the date of issuance. The issue date would be flexible and may vary depending on the licensee’s needs.

A longer licence term would result in fewer inconveniences to licensees during the renewal of their licences. A flexible issue date would provide licence holders the opportunity to renew their licence during a time of the year that is conven-ient for them (i.e., not necessarily on January 1st).

A commercial bait licence would remain valid as long as the licensee is in good standing (annual payments received, annual reports submitted by required date, etc.).

While licences would be valid for a longer (up to five-year) time period, licensees may choose to make payments as a lump sum or through annual installments.

7.6.3 AllocationSince the 1960s, the bait resource in Ontario has been allocated to licensed harvesters based on Bait Harvest Areas (BHAs). BHAs vary in size and configuration and typically allow exclu-sive harvesting rights within an area to a single licensee. In some cases, where there are high densities of bait (e.g., Lake Simcoe, Lake Erie), BHAs may be allocated to multiple harvesters on different licences. Leeches and baitfish currently have separate allocations in many BHAs (i.e., some BHAs have one licensee harvesting leeches and another harvesting baitfish). Harvesters are not limited in the amount of bait that can be


harvested from a BHA; however, they are respon-sible for the sustainable management of the bait within their respective BHAs.

The following proposals provide direction on aspects related to how the bait resource will be allocated and administered.

The provincial bait resource would continue to be allocated based on the existing BHA system.

With the exception of BHAs with high bait densities that would remain multi-use, all other BHAs would be exclusive-use allocations, regardless of the type of bait being harvested (i.e., baitfish and/or leeches).

Historically, some BHAs have been allocated to multiple harvesters – one harvesting bait-fish and another harvesting leeches. In an effort to reduce resource conflicts between harvest-ers and simplify administration of licences, this policy framework moves to a system where only a single harvester is to be allocated a BHA, and they may choose the type of bait to har-vest (i.e., baitfish and/or leeches). Under this new approach, BHAs would not be allocated to a separate baitfish harvester and a leech harvester. In situations where multi-use BHAs are to revert to exclusive use, allocations would continue until one of the BHA harvesters is no longer interested in harvesting (i.e., transfer of the BHA would not be allowed).

Any BHA that is intersected by a BMZ would be split along the established BMZ boundary into two new BHAs.

The splitting of BHAs is required, as bait would not be allowed to cross the specified movement boundary (e.g., BMZ). Regardless of where move-ment restriction boundaries are placed, some BHAs will inevitably be bisected by the boundary. As a result, the subdivided BHA would result in two (or more) new BHAs that each has their own, particular movement restrictions prohibiting the movement of bait across the BMZ boundary.

The new subdivided BHAs will continue to be allocated to the initial BHA holder. A single BHA

fee would be applied to these two new BHAs until either one of the BHAs is not allocated or is transferred to another harvester.

Licensed harvesters would continue to be allowed to transfer BHAs to other licensed harvesters, subject to MNRF approval.

With new movement restrictions specified in this policy, the transfer of BHAs between harvesters may be extremely important to ensure that oper-ators can adjust their businesses to adapt to the new changes.

In situations where a BHA becomes available for allocation and multiple harvesters have expressed an inter-est in acquiring it, the BHA would be re-allocated based upon a revised point system. This revised point sys-tem would incorporate the following:

• Increased opportunities for Indigenous people within their traditional territories;

• Increased weighting for harvesters who have adjacent BHAs;

• Increased weighting for new harvesters who can demonstrate a sound business plan;

• Decreased weighting for harvesters who have been convicted with bait-related offences.

• Consideration may be given to existing harvesters who may have been adversely affected by the new regulations (e.g., those who lost BHAs from provincial parks)

The point system has been in place since 2001 to help ensure that bait resources are allocated in a fair, objective and transparent manner; however, the point system is heavily weighted to existing harvesters with extensive BHAs, making it difficult for others to enter into the industry. Revisions to the point system will reflect Ontario’s commitment


to Indigenous peoples, including ensuring that, where a BHA becomes available, Indigenous communities are provided the first right of refusal within their traditional territories.

7.6.4 DormancyBait Harvest Areas are allocated by the MNRF with the expectation that they will be harvested. However, in some cases, harvesters will choose not to harvest a BHA in a given year; that BHA is then considered ‘dormant’. While some harvest-ers with numerous BHAs choose to leave some BHAs dormant in an effort to replenish stocks, others have little intent of harvesting. Given the new movement restrictions, some areas may go through periods of bait shortages, and it will be important that BHAs are sustainably harvested in order to supply demands.

If a BHA remains dormant (i.e., unharvested) for a period of five years, MNRF would make that BHA available for re-allocation under another licence.

A dormant BHA will be defined as one that does not reasonably contribute to the overall harvest of bait either on an annual basis or at some point over a five-year period. Five years was chosen as a dormancy period due to the fact that many harvesters choose to rotate their BHAs on a four-to-five-year cycle, leaving BHAs fallow to increase standing crop of fish. Exceptional cir-cumstances may be considered.



8.0

ConclusionThe harvest and use of live baitfish has been an important part of Ontario’s fishing industry for nearly a century, with the majority of anglers using live bait at some point during the year. However, in addition to the ecological risks associated with the harvest, use and movement of bait, the historical bait management framework has been perceived as reactionary, overly complex to administer and relatively poor at mitigating risks. In trying to address these concerns, the MNRF took an open and transparent policy development process involving extensive public and stakeholder input and engagement with First Nations and Métis communities and organizations.

The proposals addressed in this document were developed to protect the health of aquatic ecosystems by cumulatively reducing the eco-logical risks associated with the harvest, use and movement of bait, while maintaining a viable bait industry and providing business certainty to the industry. It is the MNRF’s intention that the proposals listed within this policy will ensure the sustainable use and harvest of Ontario’s bait resource while reducing the complexity of the bait management regime.


9.0

GlossaryThe terms that follow are defined as used in this policy.

Bait: live or dead baitfish and leeches; not crayfish, frogs or worms.

Bait Harvest Area (BHA): a defined area identified on a commercial bait licence where the holder is authorized to harvest bait within the province of Ontario. Bait Harvest Areas can be either ‘exclu-sive-use’, where an area has been allocated on a single licence, or ‘multi-use’, where the area has been allocated on more than one licence.

Bait Pathway: the collective movement of bait from the point of harvest through retail operations to the sale to the angler and its subsequent use.

Commercial Bait: bait that is harvested and/or sold by a commercial bait licence holder; includes bait purchased by an angler.

Conservation reserve: a protected area regulated under the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, 2006 (PPCRA) as a conservation reserve.

Dealer: an individual licensed to sell commercial bait.

Ecological integrity: according to the PPCRA, a condition in which biotic and abiotic compon-ents of ecosystems and the composition and abundance of native species and biological com-munities are characteristic of their natural regions, and rates of change and ecosystem processes are unimpeded. Ecological integrity includes, but is not limited to the following:

• Healthy and viable populations of native spe-cies, including species at risk, and maintenance of the habitat on which the species depend.

• Levels of air and water quality consistent with protection of biodiversity and recreational enjoyment.

Ecological risk: actual or potential threat of adverse effects on the environment, including but not limited to a species, a habitat, or an ecosystem.

Existing licensee: an existing commercial bait harvester with a licence for a bait harvest area containing all or portions of a wilderness, nature reserve, natural environment, waterway and/or cultural heritage class park as of the time this policy is approved.

Great Lakes: in reference to the Canadian por-tion of the Laurentian Great Lakes, including Lake Superior, Lake Huron, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario and their connected waterways, such as the St. Mary’s River, St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River, the Niagara River and the St. Lawrence River.

Harvester: an individual licensed to collect (har-vest) bait within designated Bait Harvest Areas for the purpose of selling it.

Invasive Species: alien species, including those species that are native to Ontario but have been introduced to a new geographic region due to human activity, whose introduction or spread threatens the environment, economy, and/or society including human health.

New licensee: a commercial bait harvester who acquires the licence to a bait harvest area con-taining all or portions of a wilderness, nature reserve, natural environment, waterway and/or cultural heritage class park after this policy comes into effect.

Non-target species: a species of fish that is not a legal baitfish in the province of Ontario.


Protected area: a provincial park, a conservation reserve or a recommended or proposed provincial park or conservation reserve.

Provincial park: a protected area regulated under the PPCRA as a provincial park.

Put-Grow-Take fishery: a fishery that stocks sub-catchable-sized fish (e.g., fingerlings, yearlings) with the intent that they will grow and ultimately provide angling opportunities.

Recommended or proposed provincial park or conservation reserve: an area included as a recommended or proposed provincial park or conservation reserve in an approved land use dir-ection, but not yet established under the PPCRA.

Species at risk: species listed as Special Concern, Threatened, Endangered, Extirpated or Extirpated on the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) list under Ontario Regulation 230/08 of the Endangered Species Act, 2007 as amended from time to time.

Storage: the retention of bait in holding devices by commercial or personal bait harvesters. Often, bait storage takes place in holding devices within a waterbody.

photo by M. Garvin


10.0

Legal ReferencesFish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997

Fisheries Act, 2016

Ontario Fishery Regulations, 2007

Ontario Regulation 664/98 - Fish Licensing

Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, 2006


https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/97f41

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-14/

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2007-237/?pedisable=true

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/980664/v26

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06p12

Appendix A

The Provincial Bait Policy Review Process

The proposed Strategic Policy for Bait Management in Ontario represents the outcome of the Provincial Bait Policy Review process.

The Provincial Bait Policy Review (herein referred to as the Bait Review) was initiated in 2012 to address the increasing concerns associated with the ecological risk of the use, movement and harvest of live bait, while reducing the overall complexity in the existing bait management framework and to provide business certainty to the industry.

The Bait Review strived to provide a rigorous, objective and transparent process to balance the pre-defined goals and a diversity of viewpoints.

The following provides a brief overview of the pro-cess that was followed during the Bait Review.

Advisory CommitteesGiven the complexity and scope of the review, and the diversity of stakeholder opinions related to bait use and management, two advisory com-mittees were established at the outset to provide a balanced set of perspectives and advice throughout the process.

The Bait Review Advisory Group (BRAG) was an external stakeholder group comprised of individ-uals and organizations including angling groups, industry, tourism, environmental non-government agencies (ENGO) and Indigenous communities. These individuals were drawn from across the province and were able to provide a comprehen-sive understanding of bait-related activities and issues.

BRAG was comprised of the following:

1. Trout Unlimited Canada (TU)

2. Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH)

3. Algonquin Eco Watch

4. Wildlife Conservation Society Canada (WCS)

5. Anishinabek/Ontario Fisheries Resource Centre (A/OFRC) and Indigenous commercial bait harvester

6. Nature and Outdoor Tourism Ontario (NOTO)

7. Commercial Bait Industry

• six commercial bait licence holders from across the province, including harvesters, dealers and tourist outfitters

The Bait Advisory Internal Team (BAIT) was an internal MNRF committee of individuals repre-senting a variety of program areas that deal with bait-related issues (e.g., enforcement, district offices, provincial parks).

The primary roles of BRAG and BAIT were to provide advice and perspectives on the pro-cess and the various options being considered throughout the review.

It should be emphasized that both BAIT and BRAG provided advisory roles only. These teams were not asked to vote or come to consensus on items being discussed, but rather to provide their input, suggest options to consider and help to evaluate the options being considered. While team members may have had contrasting view-points there was strong support for the policy development process.

One of the key strengths of these two commit-tees was that they were able to openly discuss all the options on the table, enabling all parties to hear the range of viewpoints, ultimately enabling MNRF to make informed evaluations of policy options. The hard work and commitment from the members in these two groups were critical to the overall success of the review.


Bait Review ProcessAt the outset of the review, the MNRF worked with both BRAG and BAIT to establish a set of agreed upon goals to guide the Bait Review process.

The goals of the provincial Bait Review were to:

1. Minimize ecological risks associated with the movement and use of bait;

2. Maintain healthy fisheries and aquatic ecosystems;

3. Reduce the complexity of the current management regime; and

4. Maintain a viable bait industry and provide business certainty to the bait industry.

All four goals were treated equally and aimed to balance stakeholder interests.

Given the complexity and varied scope of bait management in Ontario, the review was divided into five topic areas:

1. Angler Use and Movement

2. Parks and Protected Areas

3. Commercial Sale and Transport

4. Allocation

5. Reporting

Within each of these five topic areas, Ministry staff worked with BRAG and BAIT to identify all topics (e.g., scale of movement, use in provincial parks) and brainstorm options.

Through an iterative process, a comprehen-sive list of options was discussed and critically evaluated by both groups. Those options that remained after BAIT and BRAG’s review were then critically evaluated by qualitatively assess-ing each option’s ability to address the four established goals. This risk-based approach flagged options that did not meet one or more of the goals. This approach brought the long list of options down to a more manageable list of potential options for consideration by the public.

Recognizing the importance of public, stake-holder, industry and Indigenous feedback, the Bait Review gathered input from these groups throughout the process. In February 2014, an Information Notice was posted on the Environmental Registry (ER) (ER #012-1043) to make these groups aware that the Ministry had initiated the Bait Review and that options were being considered that would help address the identified goals.

Once BAIT and BRAG had helped the MNRF narrow down the list of options for each topic area, MNRF sought stakeholder feedback on the range of options being considered through the following ER postings:

1. Angler Use and Movement (ER #012-2836); posted November 2014;

2. Parks and Protected Areas (ER #012-2835); posted November 2014;

3. Commercial Sale and Transport, Allocation and Reporting (ER #012-4222); posted June 2015.

Accompanying each ER posting was a link to an associated survey that asked respondents ques-tions related to the various options that were being considered.

In addition to the ER postings, at each of these key stages, MNRF sent correspondence to all commercial bait licence holders, Indigenous communities and Provincial Treaty Organizations, ENGOs and partner agencies notifying them of the ER postings and requesting feedback on the options provided.

Upon gathering all the feedback obtained through the ER postings and associated surveys, MNRF re-evaluated those options, and through discussions with BAIT and BRAG, identified the preferred options, and subsequently developed the proposed Strategic Policy for Bait Management in Ontario.


Chronology of BAIT and BRAG meetings and ER postings:

Action Date

BAIT meeting #1 July 2012

BAIT meeting #2 February 2013

BRAG meeting #1 February 2013

BAIT meeting #3 May 2013

BRAG meeting #2 May 2013

BRAG meeting #3 (conference call) June 2013

BAIT meeting #4 (conference call) July 2013

BAIT meeting #5 (conference call) July 2013

BRAG meeting #4 (conference call) August 2013

BRAG meeting #5 September 2013

BAIT meeting #6 October 2013

BRAG meeting #6 (conference call) November 2013

BRAG meeting #7 December 2013

BRAG meeting #8 January 2014

BAIT meeting #7 February 2014

ER Posting #1: Information Notice February 2014

BRAG meeting #9 March 2014

BAIT meeting #8 July 2014

BRAG meeting #10 (conference call) July 2014

BRAG meeting #11 October 2014

ER Posting #2: Use and Harvest of Bait in Ontario Parks and Conservation Reserves

November 2014

ER Posting #3: Angler Use and Movement November 2014

BRAG meeting #12 April 2015

ER Posting #4: Commercial Sale and Transport, Allocation and Reporting of Bait

June 2015

BAIT meeting #9 June 2015

BAIT meeting #10 November 2015

BRAG meeting #13 (conference call) November 2015

BRAG meeting #14 March 2016


Appendix B

Fisheries Management Zones (FMZ)


Appendix C

Relevant ReferencesSurveys:Drake, D.A.R., and N.E. Mandrak. 2014. Ecological Risk of Live Bait Fisheries: A New Angle on Selective Fishing. Fisheries. 39(5), 201-211.

Fera, S., T. Johnson, and S. Arnott. 2014. Ontario’s Invading Species Awareness Program: analysis of provincial boater and angler survey results. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Science and Research Branch, Peterborough, Ontario. Aquatic Research and Monitoring Technical Report 2014-06. 23p.

Heck, N., T.B. Lauber, and R.C. Stedman 2013. Pathogens and invasive species in the Great Lakes: Understanding manager responses target-ing bait dealers and anglers. HDRU Publ. No. 13-9. Department of Natural Resources, N.Y.S. Coll. Agric. and Life Sci., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y. 39 pp.

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2015. 2010 Survey of Recreational Fishing in Canada: Results for Fisheries Management Zones of Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Peterborough, Ontario. 38p.

Ward, J.M., B. Cudmore, D.A.R. Drake, and N.E. Mandrak. 2011. Summary of a Survey of Baitfish Users in Canada. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2972.

Wistowsky, W. & A. Gryck. 2012. 2011 Ontario Parks Visitor Survey. Peterborough, Ontario. Parks and Protected Areas Policy Section, Natural Heritage, Lands and Protected Spaces Branch, Ministry of Natural Resources.

Journal Articles:Drake, D.A.R., and N.E. Mandrak. 2014. Bycatch, bait, anglers, and roads: quantifying vector activity and propagule introduction risk across lake ecosystems. Ecological Applications 24(4), 877-894.

Drake, D.A.R., R. Mercader, T. Dobson, and N.E. Mandrak. 2014. Can we predict risky human behaviour involving invasive species? A case study of the release of fishes to the wild. Biological Invasions 17 (1), 309-326.

Kerr, S.J., C. S. Brousseau, and M. Muschett. 2005. Invasive Aquatic Species in Ontario. Fisheries 30:7.

Litvak, M.K. and N.E. Mandrak. 1993. Ecology of Freshwater Baitfish Use in Canada and the United States. Fisheries 18:12.

Ludwig, H.R. and J. A. Leitch. 1996. Interbasin Transfer of Aquatic Biota via Anglers’ Bait Buckets. Fisheries. 21:7.

Strayer, D.L. 2010. Alien species in fresh waters: ecological effects, interactions with other stres-sors, and prospects for the future. Freshwater Biology 55:1, 152-174.

Summaries:Dunford, L.A. 2012. 2012 Survey of North American recreational baitfish regulations. Fisheries Policy Section, Biodiversity Branch, Ministry of Natural Resources.

Kerr, S.J. 2012. The management of bait in Ontario: A review. Peterborough, Ontario. Fisheries Policy Section, Biodiversity Branch, Ministry of Natural Resources.

Kerr, S. J. 2014. The Introduction and Spread of Aquatic Invasive Species through the Recreational Use of Bait: A Literature Review. Report prepared for Biodiversity Branch.

Brook trout:Brown, D.M. 2000. Harvest of bait-fish from brook trout lakes in Northern Ontario: A review. Fisheries Policy Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, ON.


Browne, D.R., J.B. Rasmussen. 2009. Shifts in the Trophic Ecology of Brook Trout Resulting from Interactions with Yellow Perch: an Intraguild Predator-Prey Interaction. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 138:1109-1122.

Browne, D.R., and J.B. Rasmussen. 2013. Rapid response of brook trout to removal of its intraguild prey, yellow perch. Environmental Biology of Fish 96:915-926.

Magnan, P. 1988. Interactions between Brook Charr, Salvelinus fontinalis, and nonsalmonid species: Ecological shift, Morphological Shift, and their Impact on Zooplankton communities. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 45: 999-1009.

Support for cleaning equipment (boats and watersports):Anderson, L.G., A.M. Dunn, P.J. Rosewarne, and P.D. Stebbing. 2015. Invaders in hot water: a simple decontamination method to prevent the accidental spread of aquatic invasive non-native species. Biological Invasions 17: 2287-2297.

Rothlisberger, J.D., W.L. Chadderton, J. McNulty, and D.M. Lodge. 2010. Aquatic Invasive Species Transport via Trailered Boats: What is Being Moved, Who is Moving it, and What Can be Done. Fisheries 35 (3) 121-132

Parks and Protected Areas Pieces:Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers Aquatic Invasive Species Task Group. 2004. A Canadian action plan to address the threat of aquatic invasive species. Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers. 26 pp.

Hartley, K., W. Wistowsky and S. Chartrand. 2013. A review of bait use and harvest in Ontario’s provincial parks and conservation reserves. Parks and Protected Areas Policy Section, Natural Heritage, Lands and Protected Spaces Branch, Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. 30 pp.

Policies and evaluations:Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2016. 2015/2016 Environmental Protection Report: Small Steps Forward, Volume 1 and Volume 2. Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, Toronto, ON. 109pp, 51pp.

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2015. Ontario’s Provincial Fish Strategy: Fish for the Future. Fisheries Policy Section, Species Conservation Policy Branch, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Peterborough, ON. 64 pp.

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2014. Licenced Commercial Bait in Ontario, 2014 Annual Summary. Fisheries Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Peterborough, ON.

Ministry of Natural Resources. 2011. Guide for Crown Land Use Planning. Peterborough, Ontario. Parks and Protected Areas Policy Section, Natural Heritage, Lands and Protected Spaces Branch, Ministry of Natural Resources. 111 pp.

Ministry of Natural Resources. 2010. Permitted Use Policy Amendment (aka “phase out”). Peterborough, Ontario. Parks and Protected Areas Policy Section, Natural Heritage, Lands and Protected Spaces Branch, Ministry of Natural Resources. 5 pp.

Ministry of Natural Resources. 1997a. Conservation reserves policy PL 3.03.05. Lands and Natural Heritage Branch. 8pp.

Ministry of Natural Resources. 1997b. Conservation reserves procedure PL 3.03.05. Lands and Natural Heritage Branch. 22 pp.

Ministry of Natural Resources. 1992. Ontario provincial parks: Planning and management policies- 1992 Update. Ontario Parks.


february, 2017 strategic policy for bait management in...

Documents