legal or not

[norma]

if am not hunting and am out for a drive and spot a moose, can i call a friend on my cell that is hunting to come and shoot it .

[savage7mm]

I would say yes as long as your friend has permission to the land that the animal is on. Although IMO its not really hunting that way.

[elkhunter11]

Legal.And if you are hunting and use cell phones to organize and conduct a drive it is legal as well. The only restrictions deal with aircraft.

[pseelk]

if am not hunting and am out for a drive and spot a moose, can i call a friend on my cell that is hunting to come and shoot it .

Only if I"M your friend!!!

[unclebuck]

Why would you encourage indigenous hunting unless you were going to get part of the proceeds? Just a thought. Nothing p's me off more than someone directing our indigenous population to where "they" can legally make a kill and then share the proceeds.:mad0030:

[catnthehat]

Why would you encourage indigenous hunting unless you were going to get part of the proceeds? Just a thought. Nothing p's me off more than someone directing our indigenous population to where "they" can legally make a kill and then share the proceeds.:mad0030:

Indigenous people were not mentioned, so I think Elkhunter11 naturally assumed it was a hypothetical question posed during a regular season?:confused:
BTW, "sharing the proceeds" is NOT allowed to non natives from all that I understand.

Cat

[Ken07AOVette]

Why would you encourage indigenous hunting unless you were going to get part of the proceeds? Just a thought. Nothing p's me off more than someone directing our indigenous population to where "they" can legally make a kill and then share the proceeds.:mad0030:

Unclebuck I think someone hacked your account, surely you would never post something so blatently ignorant and culturally biased...???

Holy hell will the Native bashing threads never end?

[sheephunter]

I think it could be interpreted that the minute you are looking for game and make the call you are indeed hunting. As long as you have a licence no biggie but if you don't....the way the definition of hunting is worded in the Act....well it would be open to interpretation whether you were illegally hunting or not. Cell phone really isn't the issue here I don't think.

[HunterDave]

Legal.And if you are hunting and use cell phones to organize and conduct a drive it is legal as well. The only restrictions deal with aircraft.

Couldn't that be considered participating in the hunt and a chargeable offence if you don't have a hunting license? :evilgrin:

[Cowtown guy]

^ this is what I was thinking also. I don't like it but I would think that as well.

[hal53]

pretty fine line...tough to prove either way...IMHO....what about bird spotters for outfitters????

[sheephunter]

pretty fine line...tough to prove either way...IMHO....what about bird spotters for outfitters????

I guess as long as they are licenced no big deal..;)

I agree it's a super fine line but not so cut and dried as some would think I fear. One of those good to be careful scenarios.

[elkhunter11]

I think it could be interpreted that the minute you are looking for game and make the call you are indeed hunting.

If he was out with the intent of spotting game for the purpose of hunting,I would agree.But as he so plainly stated,he was simply out for a drive, and happened to spot a moose.

if am not hunting and am out for a drive and spot a moose,

[hal53]

As has been said..fine line....doubt if a definitive answer will be stated here......been out driving in the patch lots of times with 3 tags in my pocket, when you see the 4th......should I be charged for phoning my buddy and saying "hey!!!".... just wondering...don't have the regs here in front of me...but, I thought there used to be something in there about electronic communications....probably another caffeine induced coma.....

[walking buffalo]

From the Wildlife Act


Interpretation
1(1) In this Act,
(o) “hunt” means, subject to subsection (6), with reference to
a subject animal,
(i) shoot at, harass or worry,
(ii) chase, pursue, follow after or on the trail of, search
for, flush, stalk or lie in wait for,
(iii) capture or wilfully injure or kill,
(iv) attempt to capture, injure or kill, or
(v) assist another person to hunt in a manner specified in
subclause (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) while that other person
is so hunting;


(2) A person shall not be regarded as having hunted a subject
animal
(a) for the purposes of subsection (1)(o)(ii), if
(i) the person was not carrying a weapon, and
(ii) the purpose of the person’s activity was restricted to
watching, photographing, drawing or painting a
picture of the animal,


(6) Where
(a) a person has the intent to hunt, and believes or appears to
believe that the person is hunting,
(b) what the person is purporting to hunt is actually a
representation of a wildlife animal that has been set out by
a wildlife officer or wildlife guardian, and
(c) having regard to the time when, the location where and
any other relevant circumstances under which the activity
takes place, the activity would, if that representation were
a real wildlife animal of the kind represented, constitute
an act of hunting that would be an offence against a
hunting provision of this Act,


I don't see where any of these descriptions of hunting equates to someone seeing a moose and telling a legal hunter where it is. I don't know of a legal precedent to answer the question. To answer the OP's question, call F&W for the answer....

[elkhunter11]

1(1)(o) “hunt” means, subject to subsection (6), with reference to a subject animal,
(i) shoot at, harass or worry,
(ii) chase, pursue, follow after or on the trail of, search for, flush, stalk or lie in wait for,
(iii) capture or wilfully injure or kill,
(iv) attempt to capture, injure or kill, or
(v) assist another person to hunt in a manner specified in subclause (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) while that other person is so hunting;


(6) Where
(a) a person has the intent to hunt, and believes or appears to believe that the person is hunting,
(b) what the person is purporting to hunt is actually a representation of a wildlife animal that has been set out by a wildlife officer or wildlife guardian, and
(c) having regard to the time when, the location where and any other relevant circumstances under which the activity takes place, the activity would, if that representation were a real wildlife animal of the kind represented, constitute an act of hunting that would be an offence against a hunting provision of this Act,
then the person is deemed for the purposes of this Act to be hunting such a wildlife animal and is guilty of an offence against that provision.


So if you are driving down the road,with no intent to do any of the above,how are you hunting?

And the information below indicates that even if you were out for the purpose of watching wildlife,or photographing wildlife, you wouldn't be considered to be hunting.

(2) A person shall not be regarded as having hunted a subject
animal
(a) for the purposes of subsection (1)(o)(ii), if
(i) the person was not carrying a weapon, and
(ii) the purpose of the person’s activity was restricted to
watching, photographing, drawing or painting a
picture of the animal,

[HunterDave]

Isn't he doing what is specified in 1(v) and doing something different than what is specified in 2(ii)?

[duffy4]

I think it could be interpreted that the minute you are looking for game and make the call you are indeed hunting. As long as you have a licence no biggie but if you don't....the way the definition of hunting is worded in the Act....well it would be open to interpretation whether you were illegally hunting or not. Cell phone really isn't the issue here I don't think.

That sounds about right to me.

I don't think it matters weather the first fellow was actively looking for moose or not. As soon as he calls the hunter to tell him where the moose is, he is actively taking part in the hunting of it.

Now if it were a surrogate moose that F&G had set out and were watching, then the hunter showed up and shot at it while the "spotter" looked on, would both parties be charged?

[walking buffalo]

Isn't he doing what is specified in 1(v) and doing something different than what is specified in 2(ii)?

Nope,

The OP describes neither

(i) shoot at, harass or worry,
(iii) capture or wilfully injure or kill,
(iv) attempt to capture, injure or kill,

His actions fit within Section 2

The fine line would be where a person was scouting for moose and then called the hunter. ((ii) chase, pursue, follow after or on the trail of, search for, flush, stalk or lie in wait for,)

Hmmmmm..... isn't that what guides do. Have to look at the guiding regulation to see how this is legal for them.

[elkhunter11]

Couldn't that be considered participating in the hunt and a chargeable offence if you don't have a hunting license?

We are getting off track here.Nowhere is it posted that the person didn't have a license, they only posted that they weren't hunting at the time.

Now if it were a surrogate moose that F&G had set out and were watching, then the hunter showed up and shot at it while the "spotter" looked on, would both parties be charged?

And even further off track we go,with even more assumptions and what ifs.

[HunterDave]

Nope,

The OP describes neither

(i) shoot at, harass or worry,
(iii) capture or wilfully injure or kill,
(iv) attempt to capture, injure or kill,

His actions fit within Section 2

The fine line would be where a person was scouting for moose and then called the hunter. ((ii) chase, pursue, follow after or on the trail of, search for, flush, stalk or lie in wait for,)

Hmmmmm..... isn't that what guides do. Have to look at the guiding regulation to see how this is legal for them.

You missed 1(v) though:

(v) assist another person to hunt in a manner specified in
subclause (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) while that other person
is so hunting;

And he's doing more than 2(ii):

(ii) the purpose of the person’s activity was restricted to
watching, photographing, drawing or painting a
picture of the animal

[walking buffalo]

You missed 1(v) though:

(v) assist another person to hunt in a manner specified in
subclause or (iv) while that other person
is so hunting;

And he's doing more than 2(ii):

(ii) the purpose of the person’s activity was restricted to
watching, photographing, drawing or painting a
picture of the animal

Nope, the person the OP called was not hunting at the time of the call. Case closed.

Appeal? :fighting0074: :)

[glen1971]

And if the other hunter (my friend)is legal and the season is open then what is the issue? If I am not hunting, or I am tagged out and see another legal animal for a friend, and I call then the big question is.. So what??

I didn't take an illegal shot.. I am not hunting illegally.. And good luck provin it... And why would anyone waste that amount of taxpayer's money on it?

If there is an issue.. Then what about the hunter that stops in to ask permission and the landowner tells him of "deer are usually by my bale stacks around day break.."??

[elkhunter11]

If there is an issue.. Then what about the hunter that stops in to ask permission and the landowner tells him of "deer are usually by my bale stacks around day break.."??

How about the landowners that put their names on the list at the F&W office to have hunters contact them,because they want the elk on their land killed?What if that landowner shows you on a map where the elk are, or worse yet, actually points to some elk in the field behind his house,that you couldn't see as you drove up?Is he hunting?
By just inviting you onto his land,is he not contributing to your hunt in some way?

[glen1971]

How about the landowners that put their names on the list at the F&W office to have hunters contact them,because they want the elk on their land killed?What if that landowner shows you on a map where the elk are, or worse yet, actually points to some elk in the field behind his house,that you couldn't see as you drove up?Is he hunting?

Probably, but would fall under some obscure clause as a Landowner.. lmao...

[elkhunter11]

Probably, but would fall under some obscure clause as a Landowner.. lmao...

With all of the assumptions and what ifs,things can get quite ridiculous.:rolleye2:

And once again, I will repeat,the OP only posted that he wasn't hunting at the time, he never posted that he didn't have a hunting license.

[sheephunter]

Nope, the person the OP called was not hunting at the time of the call. Case closed.

Appeal? :fighting0074: :)

Mr. Driver, shouldn't you have had your eyes on the road while driving?

Oh, you were looking around for animals...searching if you will.

Now after searching for these animals and locating them you conveyed this information to another hunter.

Did you have a hunting licence Mr. Driver.

Oh, so you were searching for game without a hunting licence with the intent of passing that info along to a hunter.....you were hunting then.



I agree it's a reach but I wouldn't be so naive as to say it's not possible under the current definition of hunting. Doubtful but I wouldn't be bragging about to anyone either.....lol

Guilty!

[Cowtown guy]

With all of the assumptions and what ifs,things can get quite ridiculous.:rolleye2:

And this right here ^^^ is the problem. With so many asinine laws, we have to get our lawyers to interpret them for us in camp before we set out.

There are too many hairs to split. I believe the first scenario may be in violation. Do I agree with something silly like this? No way. We need to have clear and concise laws that are easy to understand.

If buddy has a tag I don't think it should matter. Here is another for you. If my cousin wants to learn to hunt but is still uneasy with the handling of a firearm, why can't he come along and push bush? This way he can learn to see what deer do while in the bush. How they react, Why they are there in the first place, why people are put is different places and the dangers associated with having people where they are located.

If you go by the "law" as it is now then he can't do that. Hell he can't even stand beside you on point and tell you when a deer comes out of the bush if you get technical. Never mind glassing for deer or elk on a hillside. Pure silliness in my books.

[Eze]

WOW seen this topic and i just watched outdoor obsessions and that is exactly what they did on the show. he went scouting called his friend and he came and shot the moose. If everyone does this the game population dosent have a chance with the high tech methods we have out there these days. Isnt that like having a spotter?

I will have to watch it again. I think he said he was guiding this guy. Didnt think they were outfitters on that show but i could be wrong.

[Speckle55]

Please check with your local fish and wildlife officer you are all wrong...

[HunterDave]

Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that calling would be okay but I'm no lawyer. :kap:

Just in case I'm wrong you should do the following:

Always carry a disposable pay as you go cellphone in the glovebox. It's very important that you only use cash when you purchase it so no one can track you. Immediately after making the call destroy the phone completely and bury the parts so you can't be tracked by satellite. Wherever possible use codes while speaking on the phone and keep your call under 30 seconds so it can't be traced. Try to stay calm and act casually so as to go unnoticed. :cool:

Lastly, establish an alibi by heading to a location that has security cameras. That way if something goes wrong they can check the tapes later. Tim Horton's might be a good spot because if a Police Officer is there, and you can remain calm, you can strike up a conversation with him and that could help you allot later on. :innocent:

Remember, if you are really, really serious about making that call, it will likely result in the death of an animal and you will never be able to tell anyone about it. It will be a burden that you will have to carry on your own for the rest of your life. Once you understand this, then, and only then, by all means make the call. :sign0111:

Should you accept this responsibility and you are apprehended I will of course disavow all information related to this post! :shake2:

This post will self-destruct upon reading it. :burp:

[elkhunter11]

Did you have a hunting licence Mr. Driver.

Oh, so you were searching for game without a hunting licence with the intent of passing that info along to a hunter.....you were hunting then.

And a mentally unbalanced CO could assume the same of any person driving in the country at any time, hunting season or not.That would include farmers, battery operators, school bus drivers, grader operators, people in the forest industry, tourists, and anyone else that decides to go for a drive in the country. I have driven a few country roads myself without a hunting license, but I am hardly going to worry about being stopped and accused of hunting without a license.

I agree it's a reach

It is such a reach,that I have never heard of it happening have you?And I haven't heard of non hunting landowners or any other non hunting country travelers purchasing hunting licenses just so they don't get accused of hunting without a license either.

And one more time, it has yet to be established if the OP did or did not have a hunting license.

[elkhunter11]

Please check with your local fish and wildlife officer you are all wrong...

How is that possible?Some posters are saying that it could be seen as illegal, and other posters are saying that it is legal, so we can't all be wrong.

[HunterDave]

And one more time, it has yet to be established if the OP did or did not have a hunting license.

It hasn't even been established that this is happening during hunting season either. :sHa_sarcasticlol:

[elkhunter11]

It hasn't even been established that this is happening during hunting season either.

And it hasn't been established whether either the caller or the hunter, or both of them, are aboriginal, and are exempt from the hunting regulations requiring people to hold a license,or to hunt during the hunting season.

[Nait Hadya]

Nope, the person the OP called was not hunting at the time of the call. Case closed.

Appeal? :fighting0074: :)

you can't be council and judge both....

[Eze]

And it hasn't been established whether either the caller or the hunter, or both of them, are aboriginal, and are exempt from the sport hunting regulations.

does it really matter here? what the guy is saying is it legal or not to call a hunter to shoot a game animal and wait for the hunter to come to shoot it to show him where it is. (Hell lets say he is white and no hunting liense for the heck of it)

[elkhunter11]

does it really matter here?

Maybe not,but it could possibly be a factor.

what the guy is saying is it legal or not to call a hunter to shoot a game animal and wait for the hunter to come to shoot it to show him where it is.

The OP posted that he would call a hunter, to come and shoot the moose, he didn't post anything about waiting there for the hunter to arrive.If he was to wait until the hunter arrived, and then help him in any way to harvest the moose, it could make his actions illegal.

But once again, assuming things which we don't know to be facts, could possibly change the answer to the OP.

If the question is only asking if the use of a phone is legal to be used for communication for the purpose of hunting, and no aircraft is involved, then that is legal, and that is what I was answering in my original reply.

[Eze]

what the guy is saying is it legal or not to call a hunter to shoot a game animal and wait for the hunter to come to shoot it to show him where it is.

When i said that i guess its legal because I watched it on TV with Outdoor Obsessions or it would not be on there for everyone to watch, if it was illegal. To me that is like the chase and capture of an animal. Populations go down fast with this method of hunting is how i view it

[elkhunter11]

what the guy is saying is it legal or not to call a hunter to shoot a game animal and wait for the hunter to come to shoot it to show him where it is.

When i said that i guess its legal because I watched it on TV with Outdoor Obsessions or it would not be on there for everyone to watch, if it was illegal. To me that is like the chase and capture of an animal. Populations go down fast with this method of hunting is how i view it


It has been legal in Alberta to use phones or two way radios for communicating between hunters for a fairly long time, yet I have seen nothing to indicate that the use of phones is decimating the game populations.In fact, other than winterkills, most big game species in Alberta seem to be doing quite well.Do you have any data to support your opinion?

[Eze]

Nope, no data just my 2 cents worth. Just that spotting game ,calling someone to the where abouts to shoot it, the survival rate of the animals is lower than just driving by and continue on your way.

[Nait Hadya]

digress, i realize the question is "legal or not" but the issue of fair chase has to be considered. is it fair to give one hunter an advangate over other hunters. could even go so far as to say it might be unethical. legal maybe,maybe not. you have to ask yourself,are you out there to kill or hunt, hunt like a sportsman not a ...

[rugatika]

with all the vague laws around hunting and firearms you'd think it would be easier to avoid all these activities than to risk a serious violation.

All laws need to be made much more clear and not left up to interpretation. If two people can read a law and interpret it differently it should be an unjust law and should not be on the books. See my sig line.

[WCTHEMI]

digress, i realize the question is "legal or not" but the issue of fair chase has to be considered. is it fair to give one hunter an advangate over other hunters. could even go so far as to say it might be unethical. legal maybe,maybe not. you have to ask yourself,are you out there to kill or hunt, hunt like a sportsman not a ...

Most likely the moose is not going to be standing in that same spot when the friend shows up. He will have to stalk the moose in hopes of being able to get a shot at it.

[diamonddave]

digress, i realize the question is "legal or not" but the issue of fair chase has to be considered. is it fair to give one hunter an advangate over other hunters. could even go so far as to say it might be unethical. legal maybe,maybe not. you have to ask yourself,are you out there to kill or hunt, hunt like a sportsman not a ...

Why does it have to be considered? He is asking if it is legal, not if it was up to Naits' ethical standards or not...:snapoutofit: Now if he had his dog there and flushed the moose out on the road, or up a tree.... :fighting0030:

[Okotokian]

if am not hunting and am out for a drive and spot a moose, can i call a friend on my cell that is hunting to come and shoot it .

If you don't have a licence or right to hunt I would think it's illegal. However, there is nothing illegal at all with phoning your friend and saying "Wow Fred, what a lovely day. I just saw an awesome bull moose on the north side of range road 231. Quite a sight! Anyway, take it easy!" ;)

[Okotokian]

digress, i realize the question is "legal or not" but the issue of fair chase has to be considered. is it fair to give one hunter an advangate over other hunters. could even go so far as to say it might be unethical. legal maybe,maybe not. you have to ask yourself,are you out there to kill or hunt, hunt like a sportsman not a ...

Seems a bit of a stretch Nait... I thought that is why many of participated in this board. To learn to hunt more effectively, trade info on what works, good hunting areas (within "honey hole" limitations LOL). All that could potentially give us a leg up on other hunters. I think it's pretty much a given that friends tell other friends information that's helpful. It's not meant to "beat" other hunters, it's meant to help them get game. :)

Plus, I'm not sure that getting a phonecall that an animal is in a certain place means you are necessarily going to bag it two hours later when you get there.

[catnthehat]

If you don't have a licence or right to hunt I would think it's illegal. However, there is nothing illegal at all with phoning your friend and saying "Wow Fred, what a lovely day. I just saw an awesome bull moose on the north side of range road 231. Quite a sight! Anyway, take it easy!" ;)

Exactly, where dos one section f the act stop and aother start?
There are so many "what ifs" that one cannot say for sure one way or the other, each instance has to be looked at, which is what investigations are for.
Myself, I am not worried at all about phoning some9ne I know tha has a lisence if I see an anmal in a legal shooting situation.
Cat

[Eze]

senario:

A guy has a deer tag. Out driving around. sees a bull moose that is on draw only, laying in a field. He calls a friend who has a draw tag, and waits for him to come to the location and watchers him shoot the moose.

Ilegal or not? I think not legal

[Tracker34]

Exactly, where dos one section f the act stop and aother start?
There are so many "what ifs" that one cannot say for sure one way or the other, each instance has to be looked at, which is what investigations are for.
Myself, I am not worried at all about phoning some9ne I know tha has a lisence if I see an anmal in a legal shooting situation.
Cat

X2.

[duffy4]

elkhunter said:

If the question is only asking if the use of a phone is legal to be used for communication for the purpose of hunting, and no aircraft is involved, then that is legal, and that is what I was answering in my original reply.

The original post could be broken down into a 2 part question.

1. can I provide a friend with information as to the location of a moose?

2. can I use a cell phone to provide information to a friend concerning a hunting situation?

I agree with elkhunter that the use of a cell phone would not be illegal to provide hunting information in this case.

However the other part of the question, requires more information. I think most have assumed that the OP did not have a moose hunting permit for the area or the time. And his friend did. It would seem that the OP was doing something that could fall under the definition of "Hunting" (as quoted above) so it may not be legal.

[walking buffalo]

The OP was not hunting. The person the OP phoned was not hunting when the call was made.

It would be more than a bit of a stretch to call this illegal.

[sheephunter]

The OP was not hunting. The person the OP phoned was not hunting when the call was made.

It would be more than a bit of a stretch to call this illegal.

While I agree that it would be a huge stretch.....it still seems to me that a prosecutor could make a case that it was indeed hunting. It's not like the guy didn't know his buddy had a moose tag and he was obviously keeping an eye out for a moose (searching if you will) and he communicated that info so his buddy could come kill the moose. Seems like we have all the elements of hunting. I can't see charges ever being laid but I know I've been surprised before. Common sense says he wasn't hunting but sense isn't always that common in the Wildlife Act. Likely one of those things that goes on all the time but likely one of those things it's best not to tell too many people about. Fun to discuss on a messageboard but not so fun if you found yourself in court.....whether you were found innocent or not.

[Nait Hadya]

in the situation described,the caller would be seen as having participated in the hunting of that particular animal. if in fact his buddy did arrive and killed it. it clearly states you are allowed to be involved in a hunt only for certain purposes,without being licensed.

having said that, i suspect many of you are quite guilty of participating in someone elses hunt with out having the required license. that fact that many do it, does not make it legal.

if the situation involved a limited entry hunt (sheep) and other people(friends,relatives) did the boot work and spotting that would create an unfair advantage against other hunters and the sheep, it should be illegal and the book should be thrown at anyone who does such. although if you do it under the guise of a business,you can employ many methods that create an unfair advantage over an individual hunter.

what some of you are saying is that F&W can't prove it, your just driving around the trunk roads,sightseeing. it's no different than baiting deer on your property all summer,then hunting that location during the season. or having barbed hooks on your line when you know there is no around to catch you doing wrong. it's a lie that willl eventually catch up with you. not a very good image to portray on a public hunting site.


JMHO,not to be construed as legal advise or council.

[Nait Hadya]

While I agree that it would be a huge stretch.....it still seems to me that a prosecutor could make a case that it was indeed hunting. It's not like the guy didn't know his buddy had a moose tag and he was obviously keeping an eye out for a moose (searching if you will) and he communicated that info so his buddy could come kill the moose. Seems like we have all the elements of hunting. I can't see charges ever being laid but I know I've been surprised before. Common sense says he wasn't hunting but sense isn't always that common in the Wildlife Act. Likely one of those things that goes on all the time but likely one of those things it's best not to tell too many people about. Fun to discuss on a messageboard but not so fun if you found yourself in court.....whether you were found innocent or not.

if they were able to get a video of the hunt, identify the individuals,check the records and find that only one hunter was licensed. hmmm interesting. then someone would have to ask, if you are not a licensed guide nor licensed hunter can you tag along,spot,size,estimate range,identify the biggest, indicate where the miss was,ie high or low..... you see where im going with this...

[sheephunter]

if they were able to get a video of the hunt, identify the individuals,check the records and find that only one hunter was licensed. hmmm interesting. then someone would have to ask, if you are not a licensed guide nor licensed hunter can you tag along,spot,size,estimate range,identify the biggest, indicate where the miss was,ie high or low..... you see where im going with this...

Truthfully I have zero interest where you are going with it Nait.

[HunterDave]

The cellphone is the red herring in this discussion. :)

[sheephunter]

The cellphone is the red herring in this discussion. :)

Touching my nose in agreement!

[Eze]

if they were able to get a video of the hunt, identify the individuals,check the records and find that only one hunter was licensed. hmmm interesting. then someone would have to ask, if you are not a licensed guide nor licensed hunter can you tag along,spot,size,estimate range,identify the biggest, indicate where the miss was,ie high or low..... you see where im going with this...

I see caught on tape lol. iam sure cell phones come into use alot but looks 100% legal to what iam hearing and watched on tv

maybe the tv show i watched should be investagated and let the truth of the law or ( how the regs are inturperated) come to an end. Legal or Not Not sure if i worded this right but i hope you get the drift lol

[H380]

in the situation described,the caller would be seen as having participated in the hunting of that particular animal. if in fact his buddy did arrive and killed it. it clearly states you are allowed to be involved in a hunt only for certain purposes,without being licensed.

having said that, i suspect many of you are quite guilty of participating in someone elses hunt with out having the required license. that fact that many do it, does not make it legal.

if the situation involved a limited entry hunt (sheep) and other people(friends,relatives) did the boot work and spotting that would create an unfair advantage against other hunters and the sheep, it should be illegal and the book should be thrown at anyone who does such. although if you do it under the guise of a business,you can employ many methods that create an unfair advantage over an individual hunter.

what some of you are saying is that F&W can't prove it, your just driving around the trunk roads,sightseeing. it's no different than baiting deer on your property all summer,then hunting that location during the season. or having barbed hooks on your line when you know there is no around to catch you doing wrong. it's a lie that willl eventually catch up with you. not a very good image to portray on a public hunting site.


JMHO,not to be construed as legal advise or council. If this is the case then I guess kids who are under legal hunting age and are not licenced can't accompany Dad on his hunting trip right ?:thinking-006:

[LongDraw]

I think there is a correlation between the outside temperature and the hypothetical situation discussions.

[Okotokian]

If this is the case then I guess kids who are under legal hunting age and are not licenced can't accompany Dad on his hunting trip right ?:thinking-006:

Not if dad gives them each a phone, drops them off at various points, and tells them to call him if they see a buck with a good rack.

If they are just tagging along observing, no problem.

[sheepguide]

No reason that the OP canat call his buddy! Whats illegal about saying hey you should come see this moose? What ever the buddy does after seeing the moose is up to him!
SG

[Eze]

No reason that the OP canat call his buddy! Whats illegal about saying hey you should come see this moose? What ever the buddy does after seeing the moose is up to him!
SG

like your really doing that, come and see this moose lol. I am sure if you are calling a buddy you know he has a tag and you dont or you would shoot it yourself.

[sheepguide]

like your really doing that, come and see this moose lol. I am sure if you are calling a buddy you know he has a tag and you dont or you would shoot it yourself.

can you show me where the law states you can not communicate the where abouts of an animal to a hunter via cell phone?
SG

[elkhunter11]

Myself and my hunting partner both drew antlered moose tags for Camp Wainwright several years ago. At the morning briefing, the COs asked all hunters, both deer hunters, and all moose hunters, to report moose sightings to them,so that they could post them on the map, as an aid to the moose hunters. If providing the location of a game animal to a hunter, is considered hunting that animal, how could the COs legally ask hunters that did not have moose licenses to take part in a moose hunt? Surely the COs must know the regulations.

[HunterDave]

Whats illegal about saying hey you should come see this moose?

Don't forget to bring your rifle..........I mean camera? :D

[sheepguide]

Don't forget to bring your rifle..........I mean camera? :D

can you show me where it is stated I cant say bring your rifle? Seems you know the laws so you should be able to give proper clarification to where it states communicating there location of an animal is against the law even for the purpose of hunting? I cant seem to see it stated so could you help us out!
SG

[HunterDave]

I cant seem to see it stated so could you help us out! SG

Page 1, Post 15, Article 1(v).

Then refer to Post 31. :D

[Nait Hadya]

Truthfully I have zero interest where you are going with it Nait.

if activities of a second person,on camera, were not restricted to the what the law allows ie: watching,photographing,drawing or painting a picture. AND there was coaching,spotting,direction,identifing the biggest animal,where the shot was placed, where the miss was...heck, is helping to pack out an animal your not licensed to hunt illegal,maybe. was the second guy carrying a bill of laden? LOL WILD EH? LOL

perhaps those wildlife invetsigators in cali could come to alberta and hep a bit.

[H380]

No reason that the OP canat call his buddy! Whats illegal about saying hey you should come see this moose? What ever the buddy does after seeing the moose is up to him!
SG

Exactly, seeing an animal from a road does not constitute hunting it , nothing wrong with dialing a friend who has a tag .. It's not like you shot the animal without having a tag and then phoning someone who has one to come to the rescue and tag it .. that's a whole new bucket of worms ..:budo:

[sheepguide]

Page 1, Post 15, Article 1(v).

Then refer to Post 31. :D

1(1)(o) “hunt” means, subject to subsection (6), with reference to a subject animal,
(i) shoot at, harass or worry,
(ii) chase, pursue, follow after or on the trail of, search for, flush, stalk or lie in wait for,
(iii) capture or wilfully injure or kill,
(iv) attempt to capture, injure or kill, or
(v) assist another person to hunt in a manner specified in subclause (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) while that other person is so hunting;


Ok still dont see it? You say (v)?

All I see is what hunting means? I dont see where it say it is illegal to communicate the location of an animal to someone else anywhere. Please if yoy could post the statment that does as I dont seem to be able to read very good and keep missing what you are reffering to.
SG

[HunterDave]

1(1)(o) “hunt” means, subject to subsection (6), with reference to a subject animal,
(i) shoot at, harass or worry,
(ii) chase, pursue, follow after or on the trail of, search for, flush, stalk or lie in wait for,
(iii) capture or wilfully injure or kill,
(iv) attempt to capture, injure or kill, or
(v) assist another person to hunt in a manner specified in subclause (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) while that other person is so hunting;

If you don't agree with that then refer to post #31. :)

[sheepguide]

1(1)(o) “hunt” means, subject to subsection (6), with reference to a subject animal,
(i) shoot at, harass or worry,
(ii) chase, pursue, follow after or on the trail of, search for, flush, stalk or lie in wait for,
(iii) capture or wilfully injure or kill,
(iv) attempt to capture, injure or kill, or
(v) assist another person to hunt in a manner specified in subclause (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) while that other person is so hunting;

If you don't agree with that then refer to post #31. :)

Ya says you are hunting if you assist while he is hunting. Is calling him at home or where ever he is assisting while he is hunting?

Second it says assist in shooting,harassing ,worry, capture or willfully injure or kill, attempt to capture, injure or kill.

The part you havent clued in on though is that they put chase, pursue follow, search,flush and lie in wait together for a reason. They are deffining actual physical actions as in walking, running, crawling etc. Not communicating!

Third it is still just defining what hunt means. Still nothing stating illegal actions.

Im sure you can come up with something better than that, keep trying you will get it soon.
SG

[Nait Hadya]

1(1)(o) “hunt” means, subject to subsection (6), with reference to a subject animal,
(i) shoot at, harass or worry,
(ii) chase, pursue, follow after or on the trail of, search for, flush, stalk or lie in wait for,
(iii) capture or wilfully injure or kill,
(iv) attempt to capture, injure or kill, or
(v) assist another person to hunt in a manner specified in subclause (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) while that other person is so hunting;

how could you assist another hunter to shoot? hmmm,,, looking through a high powered spotting scope or camera lens and conveying where the bullet hit or missed, would constitute a violation? using the same equipment to identify full curl and parly that info to the licensed hunter? merely stating it is a legal sheep would constitute a violation?

assist to kill,hmmm if the unlicensed person there, identified a legal sheep, that would be assisting? OR used his vast experience to identify the best ram to shoot?

here the cincher,assist with, chasing,following or pursue.hmmm, how could the unlicensed hunter do that? if the unlicensed hunter directed the licensed where to go to find the sheep, that would be assisting with the chase? or lead him to a location known to hold sheep? or guiding a tinpan to a location where he killed a sheep previously?

suffice to say,if your taggin along on a hunt as a camera man and are going to put it on tv at some point in the future,you best say nothing,lest it be used against you in a court of law. you know what they say, you have the right to remain silent,,,LOL

how does that song go,,,, ya got to have a license...ya got to have a license...LOL

[Eze]

how could you assist another hunter to shoot? hmmm,,, looking through a high powered spotting scope or camera lens and conveying where the bullet hit or missed, would constitute a violation? using the same equipment to identify full curl and parly that info to the licensed hunter? merely stating it is a legal sheep would constitute a violation?

assist to kill,hmmm if the unlicensed person there, identified a legal sheep, that would be assisting? OR used his vast experience to identify the best ram to shoot?

here the cincher,assist with, chasing,following or pursue.hmmm, how could the unlicensed hunter do that? if the unlicensed hunter directed the licensed where to go to find the sheep, that would be assisting with the chase? or lead him to a location known to hold sheep? or guiding a tinpan to a location where he killed a sheep previously?

suffice to say,if your taggin along on a hunt as a camera man and are going to put it on tv at some point in the future,you best say nothing,lest it be used against you in a court of law. you know what they say, you have the right to remain silent,,,LOL

how does that song go,,,, ya got to have a license...ya got to have a license...LOL

x2

so if this is illegal the tv show on Wild tv who did exactly that should be deal with. He assisted in the hunt and its on camera as he did it.

[duffy4]

"The Law" is often not so "black and white" that it can be clearly understood by all. That is just the nature of the beast.

Part of an enforcement officers job is to look at the situation and the law and try to determine if a law has been broken and a charge should be laid. sometimes even then the crown prosecutor may decide the case is not strong enough and will plea bargain or even drop the charge.

Then if it goes to court the lawyers and judge will decide the outcome.

As we can see in this "hypothetical" situation, there are many views and opinions as to what has happened and is it legal or not.

There will be no winner or right answer determined here.

[Nait Hadya]

x2

so if this is illegal the tv show on Wild tv who did exactly that should be deal with. He assisted in the hunt and its on camera as he did it.

the silence of the lambs is deafening. LOL if we had some really ambitious wildlife officers they might persue it if someone complained. i doubt they would act on their own. although if they were to read it here,could they continue to ignore the violations on tv, without losing their authority and professionalism.

[Nait Hadya]

"The Law" is often not so "black and white" that it can be clearly understood by all. That is just the nature of the beast.

Part of an enforcement officers job is to look at the situation and the law and try to determine if a law has been broken and a charge should be laid. sometimes even then the crown prosecutor may decide the case is not strong enough and will plea bargain or even drop the charge.

Then if it goes to court the lawyers and judge will decide the outcome.

As we can see in this "hypothetical" situation, there are many views and opinions as to what has happened and is it legal or not.

There will be no winner or right answer determined here.

lawyers decide the outcome? since when does a case presented to a judge involve a lawyer in the deciding of guilty or not?

who said it was a hypothetical situation?

[mulecrazy]

I have bitten my tongue long enough on this thread. All those that feel that phoning a friend who has a moose tag is worthy of any CO's time to pursue should give their head a shake. Seriously, get your head out of the clouds. Remember what the spirit of the law and its intentions are. That is taken into consideration when charges are laid. Phoning a buddy is technically no different than giving someone advice on where to hold, they are participating in the hunt, but not in the way that the law is intending. By some of your reasonings, Guides who help their hunters with advice are breaking the law as they cannot technically hunt deer while guiding them, any mentor who takes a young kid out to help him and does not have a tag is apparently a criminal. Seriously, you will NEVER EVER find a CO who will pursue this. end of story.

[Eze]

I have bitten my tongue long enough on this thread. All those that feel that phoning a friend who has a moose tag is worthy of any CO's time to pursue should give their head a shake. Seriously, get your head out of the clouds. Remember what the spirit of the law and its intentions are. That is taken into consideration when charges are laid. Phoning a buddy is technically no different than giving someone advice on where to hold, they are participating in the hunt, but not in the way that the law is intending. By some of your reasonings, Guides who help their hunters with advice are breaking the law as they cannot technically hunt deer while guiding them, any mentor who takes a young kid out to help him and does not have a tag is apparently a criminal. Seriously, you will NEVER EVER find a CO who will pursue this. end of story.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BEING A MENTOR STANDING ALONG SIDE OF A YOUNG PERSON COACHING HIM, AND CALLING SOMEONE ON A CELL A FEW MILES AWAY TO COME AND TAKE AN ANIMAL.

I am sure a CO understands this.* he was young once tagging along with someone ( dad or mentor) helping him. Maybe they should re write the regs to say young hunters can do that to learn. Guides who drive a hunter around looking for an animal are then breaking the law as per the regs or are they excempt from this law because they are outfitters. If so why are they better than a resident hunter.

If the regs say you can not its up the F&W to enforce this end of story

[sheepguide]

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BEING A MENTOR STANDING ALONG SIDE OF A YOUNG PERSON COACHING HIM, AND CALLING SOMEONE ON A CELL A FEW MILES AWAY TO COME AND TAKE AN ANIMAL.

I am sure a CO understands this.* he was young once tagging along with someone ( dad or mentor) helping him. Maybe they should re write the regs to say young hunters can do that to learn. Guides who drive a hunter around looking for an animal are then breaking the law as per the regs or are they excempt from this law because they are outfitters. If so why are they better than a resident hunter.

If the regs say you can not its up the F&W to enforce this end of story

No one has yet to show where it states you can not verbaly tell someone where an animal is.


SG

[elkhunter11]

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BEING A MENTOR STANDING ALONG SIDE OF A YOUNG PERSON COACHING HIM, AND CALLING SOMEONE ON A CELL A FEW MILES AWAY TO COME AND TAKE AN ANIMAL.



Of course there is a difference, the mentor is actively taking part in the hunt, the person that sees an animal, then makes a phone call, and then drives away before the hunter arrives, is not actively taking part in the hunt. In fact, if the hunter was not actually hunting when he received the call, the caller is long gone before the hunt actually begins.

[sheepguide]

Acording to alot of guys on this thread it is then illegal to,

push bush
help recover or track wounded game
help to or reload for(its assisting in the shooting)
give info on hunting areas or zones(help locate animals just like a phone)
call animals for others unless you have a tag for said animal
pack equipment in

or anything that may help or assist in the hunting of an animal.
Some people need to step back, take a big wiff of reality, give their head a shake and then rethink their ideas.

So if two buddies are hunting together and one tags out does he head home? Or stay and help his buddy fill his tag? I know every member here would stay and help any way they could. Why? Because there is absolutly nothing wrong with it!

SG

[Nait Hadya]

I have bitten my tongue long enough on this thread. All those that feel that phoning a friend who has a moose tag is worthy of any CO's time to pursue should give their head a shake. Seriously, get your head out of the clouds. Remember what the spirit of the law and its intentions are. That is taken into consideration when charges are laid. Phoning a buddy is technically no different than giving someone advice on where to hold, they are participating in the hunt, but not in the way that the law is intending. By some of your reasonings, Guides who help their hunters with advice are breaking the law as they cannot technically hunt deer while guiding them, any mentor who takes a young kid out to help him and does not have a tag is apparently a criminal. Seriously, you will NEVER EVER find a CO who will pursue this. end of story.

guides are licensed. if you are unlicensed you are only allowed to participate in the hunt as the law prescribes,nothing more,nothing less. the law is there to uphold a spirit of good sportmanship and maintain a level playing field. helping a hunter kill his game is unfair to a hunter out there by himself,enjoying the hunt as it was intended to be,not a foot race to a killing.

[sheepguide]

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BEING A MENTOR STANDING ALONG SIDE OF A YOUNG PERSON COACHING HIM, AND CALLING SOMEONE ON A CELL A FEW MILES AWAY TO COME AND TAKE AN ANIMAL.

I am sure a CO understands this.* he was young once tagging along with someone ( dad or mentor) helping him. Maybe they should re write the regs to say young hunters can do that to learn. Guides who drive a hunter around looking for an animal are then breaking the law as per the regs or are they excempt from this law because they are outfitters. If so why are they better than a resident hunter.

If the regs say you can not its up the F&W to enforce this end of story

Is it illegal if I see a 6pt elk somewhere during hunting season and I have no tag to post on AO where I saw it so some member can hunt it? Come on you guys!
SG

[HunterDave]

Acording to alot of guys on this thread it is then illegal to,

push bush

SG

Without a hunting license that one is definitely illegal. C'mon SG even I knew that! :)

[elkhunter11]

Is it illegal if I see a 6pt elk somewhere during hunting season and I have no tag to post on AO where I saw it so some member can hunt it? Come on you guys!


As I posted earlier, when I was hunting moose at Camp Wainwright, the COs encouraged the deer hunters to report moose sightings, so that they could post those locations on the map in the check station, so the moose hunters could see where the moose were being seen. Surely the COs would not encourage people to commit an illegal act.

[mulecrazy]

Acording to alot of guys on this thread it is then illegal to,

push bush
help recover or track wounded game
help to or reload for(its assisting in the shooting)
give info on hunting areas or zones(help locate animals just like a phone)
call animals for others unless you have a tag for said animal
pack equipment in

or anything that may help or assist in the hunting of an animal.
Some people need to step back, take a big wiff of reality, give their head a shake and then rethink their ideas.

So if two buddies are hunting together and one tags out does he head home? Or stay and help his buddy fill his tag? I know every member here would stay and help any way they could. Why? Because there is absolutly nothing wrong with it!

SG

X1000000

The crap that some people interpret out of the regs is amazing. Just about every hunter on here has been designated a bush pusher after they are tagged out. Heck, they can even carry a gun and shoot coyotes along the way if they want. For any CO's and internet CO's out there, I used to push bush for Dad when I was a little one, and my kids may very well push bush for me when they are old enough. Teaching a kid about hunting, the outdoors, and giving them some great excercise is not a criminal action and should not be viewed as such. I pray that if anyone ever gets charged with this they fight that as much as possible.

[sheepguide]

Without a hunting license that one is definitely illegal. C'mon SG even I knew that! :)

LOL :thinking-006:

[HunterDave]

X1000000

You can't push bush for someone without having a hunting license..........GUARANTEED!

[mulecrazy]

guides are licensed. if you are unlicensed you are only allowed to participate in the hunt as the law prescribes,nothing more,nothing less. the law is there to uphold a spirit of good sportmanship and maintain a level playing field. helping a hunter kill his game is unfair to a hunter out there by himself,enjoying the hunt as it was intended to be,not a foot race to a killing.

Holy sweet jeebus. Yes what an unfair advantage the guy with a buddy has. :snapoutofit::snapoutofit::snapoutofit:. step away from the tub of glue.:thinking-006:

[mulecrazy]

You can't push bush for someone without having a hunting license..........GUARANTEED!

There is nothing saying he cant walk through that push looking for rabbits or coyotes while his buddy sits at the other end.

[sheepguide]

Holy sweet jeebus. Yes what an unfair advantage the guy with a buddy has. :snapoutofit::snapoutofit::snapoutofit:. step away from the tub of glue.:thinking-006:

LOL I guess those without friends to hunt with may think so!!!!!!

[mulecrazy]

Here is what would apparently be a legal phone call. Hunter 1 kills a deer and phones his buddy to tell him the news

H 1: Hey I just filled my mulie tag with a nice buck

H 2: great stuff, I am just heading out after work did you see anything else while out and about today?

H 1: I cant say as I no longer have a tag.


long pause (awkward silence)


H 2: thanks friend, you suck. hangs up

[Eze]

Is it illegal if I see a 6pt elk somewhere during hunting season and I have no tag to post on AO where I saw it so some member can hunt it? Come on you guys!
SG


if you call a friend on the phone and say i seen a moose at so and so place and you left i think that is fine. If you call then stay there and watch the animal until your friend shows up to show him the location and watch him shoot it ( as in Outdoor Obsessions) then that is aiding in the capture if you didnt have that tag yourself with you then it is illegal Iam sure if you had that tag you would shoot the animal yourself.

There is nothing wrong with using a cell phone if you werent there when the hunter arrives and the animal is shot and all being in a short time frame

[sheepguide]

Is it illegal if I see a 6pt elk somewhere during hunting season and I have no tag to post on AO where I saw it so some member can hunt it? Come on you guys!
SG


if you call a friend on the phone and say i seen a moose at so and so place and you left i think that is fine. If you call then stay there and watch the animal until your friend shows up to show him the location and watch him shoot it ( as in Outdoor Obsessions) then that is aiding in the capture if you didnt have that tag yourself with you which is illegal. Iam sure if you had that tag you would shoot the animal yourself.

There is nothing wrong with using a cell phone if you werent there when the animal is shot

HMMM guess the F&W officers covering south of Manyberries last fall are some illegal. They were pointing guys where to go, where they seen the antelope Etc.

Whats the difference if you call then drive down the road, or call and sit there and watch? Either way you have contributed the same.

I still see no where that says the communication is illegal other than some guys saying it is.

SG

[mulecrazy]

Is it illegal if I see a 6pt elk somewhere during hunting season and I have no tag to post on AO where I saw it so some member can hunt it? Come on you guys!
SG


if you call a friend on the phone and say i seen a moose at so and so place and you left i think that is fine. If you call then stay there and watch the animal until your friend shows up to show him the location and watch him shoot it ( as in Outdoor Obsessions) then that is aiding in the capture if you didnt have that tag yourself with you which is illegal. Iam sure if you had that tag you would shoot the animal yourself.

There is nothing wrong with using a cell phone if you werent there when the animal is shot

ahhh yes, the infamous "leave before the kill clause".

[sheephunter]

the silence of the lambs is deafening. LOL if we had some really ambitious wildlife officers they might persue it if someone complained. i doubt they would act on their own. although if they were to read it here,could they continue to ignore the violations on tv, without losing their authority and professionalism.

Perhaps the cameraman had a licence too.

[Eze]

Perhaps the cameraman had a licence too.

the silence of the lambs is deafening. LOL if we had some really ambitious wildlife officers they might persue it if someone complained. i doubt they would act on their own. although if they were to read it here,could they continue to ignore the violations on tv, without losing their authority and professionalism

iam sure they read stuff on this site and its up to them to follow up such a continuos discussion and where it is documented on tv. If it doesnt get looked into then it must be legal to aid in the capture of wild life .

I would like to know as would many others who just look in and afraid to discuss it on here. Also why do outfitters have the right to aid in the capture of wildlife? Just because they have a lience to guide shouldnt give them special rights over any other hunters.

[elkhunter11]

Also why do outfitters have the right to aid in the capture of wildlife?

Outfitters usually guide people that kill game animals, they don't generally aide people in capturing wildlife. If you aren't a CO removing a problem animal, or a biologist doing a wildlife study, and you don't have a permit to keep live game animals, why would you want to capture them?Other than on film of course.

[sheephunter]

They don't have any extra rights over hunters that I can see. Nothing illegal about two appropriately licenced hunters working together to harvest game. I'd say their guide licence does give them additional rights over a non hunter though.

[sheepguide]

I would like to know as would many others who just look in and afraid to discuss it on here. Also why do outfitters have the right to aid in the capture of wildlife? Just because they have a lience to guide shouldnt give them special rights over any other hunters.

Guides and Outfitters must follow all rules that resident hunters do! A guides license is supposed to determine competancy to follow them rules and to keep your hunters within legal boundries.
SG

[Nait Hadya]

HMMM guess the F&W officers covering south of Manyberries last fall are some illegal. They were pointing guys where to go, where they seen the antelope Etc.

Whats the difference if you call then drive down the road, or call and sit there and watch? Either way you have contributed the same.

I still see no where that says the communication is illegal other than some guys saying it is.

SG

someone must have asked the question directly to an enforcement officer,hmmmm wonder what i did with that letter. LOL

[Eze]

Outfitters usually guide people that kill game animals, they don't generally aide people in capturing wildlife. If you aren't a CO removing a problem animal, or a biologist doing a wildlife study, and you don't have a permit to keep live game animals, why would you want to capture them?Other than on film of course.

i use capture as to kill its just words. Just the wording in the regs i interpet in hunting ---- to hunt---kill---capture---stalk---whatever, iam not lawyer

[elkhunter11]

i use capture as to kill its just words. Just the wording in the regs i interpet in hunting ---- to hunt---kill---capture---stalk---whatever, iam not lawyer

Laws are made up of very specific words, a small change in the wording can mean the difference between legal, and illegal.It is legal to buy a license, and kill a game animal, but you can't just capture one and keep it in captivity unless you have a permit to do so.

[duffy4]

Now what was the original question... would an officer lay a charge? no that wasn't it...is it ethical? not that ether...would anyone here do the same thing No that wasn't the question at all.

Oh yes it was..."legal or not" Looking at the wording of the regulations and the description of the situation, I'd say quite possibly "not legal".

[elkhunter11]

Oh yes it was..."legal or not" Looking at the wording of the regulations and the description of the situation, I'd say quite possibly "not legal".

You don't have a full description of the situation.Is the caller going to stick around and help the hunter?Does the caller have a hunting license?Is the caller exempt from the hunting regulations?Does the hunter have a hunting license?Is the hunter exempt from the hunting regulations?

Without knowing the answers to those questions, you can only answer as to whether a cell phone is legal to use to communicate with hunters, and unless an aircraft is involved, hunters can legally use cellphones to communicate.

[sheepguide]

So how bout this, if Joe Relative knows their uncle is a moose hunter and knows absolutly nothing about hunting but sees a moose in the muskeg across the field from their house and calls to tell the uncle and the uncle comes and shoots it and the caller see's from their house then they are now a criminal?
SG

[HunterDave]

So how bout this, if Joe Relative knows their uncle is a moose hunter and knows absolutly nothing about hunting but sees a moose in the muskeg across the field from their house and calls to tell the uncle and the uncle comes and shoots it and the caller see's from their house then they are now a criminal?
SG

The same procedure should be followed as was described in post #31. :)

[glen1971]

How next to impossible would it be to prove anything illegal over one LEGALLY tagged deer, moose, elk, etc.??

Does anyone think that is the biggest fish the F&W have to fry.. Whether or not I called a buddy to come shoot a buck since I already had mine?? I'd almost take a sick day to see the initial reading of that one in court...The prossecution's side would be very costly to prove any wrong doing...

[duffy4]

You don't have a full description of the situation.Is the caller going to stick around and help the hunter?Does the caller have a hunting license?Is the caller exempt from the hunting regulations?Does the hunter have a hunting license?Is the hunter exempt from the hunting regulations?

Without knowing the answers to those questions, you can only answer as to whether a cell phone is legal to use to communicate with hunters, and unless an aircraft is involved, hunters can legally use cellphones to communicate.

In an earlier post I thought you were saying "too many ifs" Now it looks like your saying "its all about the ifs"

I said "the description of the situation...quite possibly not legal"

This thread could go on and on and on as long as we don't have all the ifs filled in.

[Eze]

Now what was the original question... would an officer lay a charge? no that wasn't it...is it ethical? not that ether...would anyone here do the same thing No that wasn't the question at all.

Oh yes it was..."legal or not" Looking at the wording of the regulations and the description of the situation, I'd say quite possibly "not legal".

With what the regs say and what was on tv i would say not legal yet it seems it can be done. I guess its up to F&w to look into it. If nothing done and resloved and you do it, and get charged, use the film as your evidence that it is legal i guess

[sheephunter]

Eze, I fully appreciate that you are trolling as hard as you can and no one is taking the bait and it must be frustrating but perhaps you can share what you think is so illegal about two apropriately licenced hunters working together to harvest a ram......on camera or not and what it has to do with the OP.

[Eze]

Eze, I fully appreciate that you are trolling as hard as you can and no one is taking the bait and it must be frustrating but perhaps you can share what you think is so illegal about two apropriately licenced hunters working together to harvest a ram......on camera or not and what it has to do with the OP.

WELL WHAT I SEE IS NO ONE SEEMS TO KNOW WHAT THE LAW IS . I AM NOT TROLLING JUST USING WHAT I SEEN AS AN EXAMPLE. THATS ALL I HAVE TO GO ON. IN FACT I ENJOY THE SHOW FIND IT FUNNY.

THE OP WANTED TO KNOW WHAT IS LEGAL OR NOT LEGAL AND I AM SAYING WHAT I SEEN AND WHAT I THINK IS ILLGAL THE WAY I READ THE REGS. I MYSELF WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE ANSWER. tHEY NSHOULD WRITE THE REGS SO MOST UNDERSTAND IT AND NOT GUESSING ON SOME ISSUES

sorry for the caps but i didnt feel like rewriting it lol

[sheephunter]

I usually find it's best to get all the facts before making acqusations on a public messageboard. Always fun to discuss hypothetical situations but when they stop being hypothetical and acqusations are made.....well it looks more like trolling. Just a thought for next time :)

[elkhunter11]

In an earlier post I thought you were saying "too many ifs" Now it looks like your saying "its all about the ifs"



Actually, I posted repeatedly that some people were making the assumption that the caller had no hunting license. Some were also assuming that the caller would wait for the hunter to arrive, and then ,he would in some way assist the hunter to harvest the moose. Both of those assumptions could make the difference as to whether any illegal activity would occur.

[Eze]

I usually find it's best to get all the facts before making acqusations on a public messageboard. Always fun to discuss hypothetical situations but when they stop being hypothetical and acqusations are made.....well it looks more like trolling. Just a thought for next time :)

I am not accussing them, its my opinion that it is illegal and then others who are interested in the topic can watch and decide for themselves on what they think. Many shows out there and some of the things they put on film are questionable. I just used this one as an example that stands out to me , maybe not to others.

As an example , the camera gathers light even when shooting time is up. Hard to prove I guess, but my thought. Strange how it is so light out, an animal is shot, then falls when shot and its dark as they stand over it? it happens on many shows it seems.


again legal or not :thinking-006:

[sheephunter]

I am not accussing them, its my opinion that it is illegal and then others who are interested in the topic can watch and decide for themselves on what they think. Many shows out there and some of the things they put on film are questionable. I just used this one as an example that stands out to me , maybe not to others.

As an example , the camera gathers light even when shooting time is up. Hard to prove I guess, but my thought. Strange how it is so light out, an animal is shot, then falls when shot and its dark as they stand over it? it happens on many shows it seems.


again legal or not :thinking-006:

So you are saying that you think two guys going sheep hunting together, both licenced, working together to harvest one ram is illegal......hypothetically speaking of course.

[sheepguide]

Funny thing is every hunting show out there has video proof of guys helping each other hunt without the tag for said animal.
SG

[Eze]

So you are saying that you think two guys going sheep hunting together, both licenced, working together to harvest one ram is illegal......hypothetically speaking of course.

If they both have tags for sheep i think its ok. If one had a tag and the other did not iam not sure yet. thats what we are trying to find out here.

[Eze]

Funny thing is every hunting show out there has video proof of guys helping each other hunt without the tag for said animal.
SG

now that may not be true. we do not know if they each do not have a tag. I assume they do. Moose being on draw, the chances of each hunter having a moose tag is slim . in that case according to the regs its back to the aiding in a hunt which illegal. I think its time they rewrite the regs to make it truly black and white for all to understand:confused0024:.

[sheepguide]

What about the many AO members that get drawn for suffield bull elk or southern bull elk? How many of them hunt alone? Most of the time on them hunts only one guy/girl from the group will have a tag. But there are many many times guys/girls helping them spot, helping get permission and assisting them in the hunt etc.

What about when guys get draw for cadomin sheep? How many of them groups have multiple late season tags? How many of them guys/girls are watched by CO's while hunting there? How many of these guys/girls hunt unassisted?

How many groups of Antelope hunters hunt and then when each member tags out that hunter heads home or stays in camp and avoid assisting in the hunt?

SG

[Eze]

What about the many AO members that get drawn for suffield bull elk or southern bull elk? How many of them hunt alone? Most of the time on them hunts only one guy/girl from the group will have a tag. But there are many many times guys/girls helping them spot, helping get permission and assisting them in the hunt etc.

What about when guys get draw for cadomin sheep? How many of them groups have multiple late season tags? How many of them guys/girls are watched by CO's while hunting there? How many of these guys/girls hunt unassisted?

How many groups of Antelope hunters hunt and then when each member tags out that hunter heads home or stays in camp and avoid assisting in the hunt?

SG
If that statement is true then i guess you can aid in the hunt and they should re write the regs so all will know its allowed. I was not aware that COs watched and helped out as prevously mention.

[elkhunter11]

I was not aware that COs watched and helped out as prevously mention.


It is common for the COs to pass on the locations of elk during the Cypress Hills elk hunt, moose/elk during the the Camp Wainwright moose/elk hunt, and bison during the bison hunt. Since they provide only information, they aren't actually taking part in the hunt. The same can be said for anyone else that only passes oninformation, but does not take actually part in a hunt.

[sheepguide]

It is common for the COs to pass on the locations of elk during the Cypress Hills elk hunt, moose/elk during the the Camp Wainwright moose/elk hunt, and bison during the bison hunt. Since they provide only information, they aren't actually taking part in the hunt. The same can be said for anyone else that only passes oninformation, but does not take actually part in a hunt.

Exactly X2

[Okotokian]

This thread reminds me of two guys arguing about whether driving 114 kph in a 110 kph zone is legally speeding or not.

-"Well everyone does it"
-"I drove by a cop at 114 and he never pulled me over"
-"they don't ticket you unless you're 10 kph over"

It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree that 110 should be the limit. It doesn't matter whether you are likely to get charged or not. Fact is, even 111 kph is legally speeding, and deep down we all know it, though we may not like it. It's discretionary whether an officer will charge you. 99.9% won't, but one could.

[sheepguide]

This thread reminds me of two guys arguing about whether driving 114 kph in a 110 kph zone is legally speeding or not.

-"Well everyone does it"
-"I drove by a cop at 114 and he never pulled me over"
-"they don't ticket you unless you're 10 kph over"

It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree that 110 should be the limit. It doesn't matter whether you are likely to get charged or not. Fact is, even 111 kph is legally speeding, and deep down we all know it, though we may not like it. It's discretionary whether an officer will charge you. 99.9% won't, but one could.

Thing is speed limits are set in stone numbers and laws, that are impossible to not understand.
No one has shown yet where it states that the communication that the OP used is in fact illegal. There is no hard written law that has been shown to support the illegal activities some are suggesting.
Guys have their interpitation of how a law is written(seems an equal number say legal and illegal) but it does not state it in black and white.
SG

[diamonddave]

And with the way todays society is, there isn't much left to the imagination. If it is against the law, it would be worded exactly that way in the act. It would say.... "Comunication via radio's or cell phone is strictly illegal, unless it falls under these 15 subsections..... ect ect ect

[Okotokian]

Thing is speed limits are set in stone numbers and laws, that are impossible to not understand.
No one has shown yet where it states that the communication that the OP used is in fact illegal. There is no hard written law that has been shown to support the illegal activities some are suggesting.
Guys have their interpitation of how a law is written(seems an equal number say legal and illegal) but it does not state it in black and white.
SG

You know what? On sober second thought I think you are right. I oversimplified the case.

[Eze]

well i thought a few more answers would come out with this thread.

I will go to the F&W and ask to find out. Others should do the same if they care.

happy hunting

[sheephunter]

If they both have tags for sheep i think its ok. If one had a tag and the other did not iam not sure yet. thats what we are trying to find out here.

Oh, okay sorry, we must have been thinking about differents shows then. My bad.