of the counties this year, would point up the urgency of such a study." 



Although bounty has been paid on bears for 20 years, very little of a 

 scientific nature is known about the species. It is regrettable that a study similar 

 to that currently under way on the wolf was not instituted by the Department 

 during this period when numerous specimens could have been readily available 

 from the bounty system. 



Grateful acknowledgement is made for the valuable co-operation of those 

 Magistrates, Justices of the Peace and Bear Bounty Officers who issued claims 

 without remuneration from the Department, and to Officials of the Department 

 of Agriculture for their assistance in supplying information on the agricultural 

 develepoment of the townships which enabled this Department to determine, in 

 part, the eligibility of claims. 



FIELD SERVICES 



Revision of The Game ond Fisheries Act 



The management of Ontario's fish and game resources has for many years 

 been achieved to a large extent by regulation. During the last 15 years, an inten- 

 sive biological inventory and research program has provided a basis from which 

 to examine the regulations. During this fiscal year, The Game and Fisheries Act 

 was carefully revised. The revision took cognizance not only of new biological 

 information, but also of the most up-to-date concept of legal principles and 

 drafting. 



The statute, which received third reading in the Legislature on March 30, 

 1962, was re-arranged in a more logical order to make it easier to find the 

 sections relating to hunting, trapping, fishing or other particular aspects. 



Some sections of the existing Act, which repeated similar sections of The 

 Summary Convictions Act or The Ontario Fisheries Regulations, were deleted. 

 Certain sections had no place in modern social or game management concepts, 

 and these were left out in the new bill, e.g., the proihibition on the coursing of 

 greyhounds, and the inspection of tourist outfitting camps by conservation officers 

 for sanitation and refuse disposal. 



Certain sections of the existing Act were considered to be discriminatory, 

 for example, the prohibition on employees of railways, or of mining, lumbering 

 and construction camps to possess firearms in any building connected with the 

 operations. It was considered that such employees are subject to the same regula- 

 tions concerning open seasons and hunting licences as any other person, and that 

 special sections of the statute should not specifically mention this particular group 

 of employees. A second consideration was that such legislation is in the nature 

 of a support in that it creates an offence of possessing the means to do an unlawful 

 act, when it is difficult to obtain evidence that the unlawful act has actually been 

 committed. Prohibitions of a supporting nature are undesirable, since they 

 presume guilt and tend to lower standards of investigation by enforcement officers. 

 It was considered that prohibitions in the game and fish laws should be based 

 upon sound bioligical and legal principles, and should, therefore, stand alone. 



The sections on penalties were greatly revised. Through the years, penalties 

 had become so carefully detailed that little discretion was left to the judiciary. 

 A general penalty has been provided, in which there is no minimum and the 

 maximum is $1,000. Specifically, for the offence of careless hunting, provision is 

 made for imprisonment in addition to or instead of a fine. 



The drafting of each section was carefully reviewed to achieve simplicity 

 and clarity in its wording. After all, The Game and Fish Act, as it is now called, 

 is one of the more widely read statutes. 



114 



