Dispatching a big animal after legal light ?

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by ACKLEY ABE

Ed Zachery..... so if your tag is filled (and that's usually why your doin the walking and your buddy is sitting waiting) , you'd better be walking through the bush huntin coyotes..not "pushing" deer for for your buddy at the end of the bush, cause your tag is filled.

Not sure if I've ever heard of anyone being charged, but it something to consider.

Is it really worth considering?

Should we consider requesting enforcement of this interpretation or should we consider having the definition of "hunting" rewritten to have it follow a widely accepted practice?


By this definition, a person in possession of weapon in a vehicle is considered to be "hunting" if they look out the window with the intent to spot wildlife, even if you are doing 100k on a paved highway.

Imagine the potential charges....

Hunting a species without authorization. No tag for that animal.
Depending on where you are, Hunting within a Provincial Park or wildlife corridor, etc.
Hunting in a dangerous manner.
and others....

[J-Driver]

Wow, did that spark ever light a fire? I suppose all these people are too busy reading their regulations and finding the legal definition of every word to get out and enjoy an afternoon with some friends. I've personally never taken an animal pushing bush anyways, it's more of a social thing. A social thing that I will continue to do, whether someone on this forum wants to interpret it as illegal or not. We sat and talked to the co for a half hour or better, my neighbor left with his son, and he said he didn't want to hold us up anymore to continue on.......
I'm sure if there was any concern he would have voiced it.
And to those who want to comment on the deer after legal light, he was a 14 year old kid, who shot an animal in legal light. He did what he has learned, and made a humane kill, unfortunately a bad judgement call on the time. His lesson was learned, he lost his deer, he had to pay his fine. Now if he was an adult, fair enough to judge...... I suppose everyone on here is a perfect angel?

[FCLightning]

As long as you have a legal tag for something then you can be hunting. It is when you get the kids, cousins and grandmas to head through the bush to the folks on stand that things get problematic. If they do not have a licence to be hunting, they are most definitely assisting in the hunt and thereby are hunting by definition of the wildlife act.
If I am driving down the highway I can most certainly be considered to be hunting - but there is always an open season on crows (except in a Park, where the weapon will be properly encased etc. which negates the "hunting" anyway.) That is an illogical stretch.
There is an exemption in the act for folks who are observing or photographing, but that is what they have to be doing.

(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,

If you are assisting by attempting to follow, search for, flush or chase game to the hunter then it is clearly considered illegal. The act has not been changed in this regard in eons, and the wording is quite clear as to what the intent of the act is. No licence - no hunting. Assisting is hunting.

[FCLightning]

J-Driver - not telling what to do or not to do in any way. Just providing information. Read it for yourself if you want to - or not. Doesn't bother me any.

[J-Driver]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Is it really worth considering?

Should we consider requesting enforcement of this interpretation or should we consider having the definition of "hunting" rewritten to have it follow a widely accepted practice?


By this definition, a person in possession of weapon in a vehicle is considered to be "hunting" if they look out the window with the intent to spot wildlife, even if you are doing 100k on a paved highway.

Imagine the potential charges....

Hunting a species without authorization. No tag for that animal.
Depending on where you are, Hunting within a Provincial Park or wildlife corridor, etc.
Hunting in a dangerous manner.
and others....

So I suppose if I glass a nice mule deer on a year I haven't been drawn I'm going to be chased down and charged? Come on people, this forum is to the point it's pathetic and defeating its purpose

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by J-Driver

So I suppose if I glass a nice mule deer on a year I haven't been drawn I'm going to be chased down and charged? Come on people, this forum is to the point it's pathetic and defeating its purpose

The only thing pathetic is absurd statements such as this that have no basis in any type of reality.
Go back and read the definition of hunting again. Then come back and explain how in any distorted form of reality you could make such a conclusion.

[J-Driver]

Is it any more absurd than a guys honest question about wounded animals after dark turning into a giant discussion about pushing bush? You could interpret the laws 800 ways by the definition. By definition I have my rifle, so I am "hunting", and I'm looking at an animal I "do not possess a valid tag for". So therefore I would be hunting without a valid tag?
This is all relative to someone who has already tagged out "assisting" another hunter on some levels? By this conglomeration of definitions it appears that way does it not?
I'm simply making a point that some people are reading way too far into things. Our local co loves to nail poachers to the wall, and you can find the local outfitters out pushing (with 2 way radios none the less) very easily. If there was some kind of validity, I'm sure he would stop this.....

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by J-Driver

So I suppose if I glass a nice mule deer on a year I haven't been drawn I'm going to be chased down and charged? Come on people, this forum is to the point it's pathetic and defeating its purpose

You are confirming my point.

The interpretation of "hunting" is too vague, however enforcement officers can use this definition as they wish.

A real life example.

A Parks officer pulled up when myself and a buddy were pulled over on the side of a road within a provincial park. She asked what are we doing and if we were hunting. We said that we are just looking for at the scenery in general and for wildlife in particular while having a coffee, however we are not actively hunting as we are in a truck on a highway in a provincial park.....

The Parks officer asked if there was a weapon in the vehicle and if we had hunting licences, which we answered yes to both. She then stated that since we had a weapon in the vehicle and hunting licences and were looking for wildlife that she considers our actions to be actively hunting....

The whole event went fine and the lady was courteous and fair, however her interpretation of the law concluded that the circumstances gave her the right to charge us with hunting in a Provincial Park. This is ludicrous!

[Chet]

Did she charge you?

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

You are confirming my point.

The interpretation of "hunting" is too vague, however enforcement officers can use this definition as they wish.

A real life example.

A Parks officer pulled up when myself and a buddy were pulled over on the side of a road within a provincial park. She asked what are we doing and if we were hunting. We said that we are just looking for at the scenery in general and for wildlife in particular while having a coffee, however we are not actively hunting as we are in a truck on a highway in a provincial park.....

The Parks officer asked if there was a weapon in the vehicle and if we had hunting licences, which we answered yes to both. She then stated that since we had a weapon in the vehicle and hunting licences and were looking for wildlife that she considers our actions to be actively hunting....

The whole event went fine and the lady was courteous and fair, however her interpretation of the law concluded that the circumstances gave her the right to charge us with hunting in a Provincial Park. This is ludicrous!

[happy honker]

Originally Posted by FCLightning

As long as you have a legal tag for something then you can be hunting. It is when you get the kids, cousins and grandmas to head through the bush to the folks on stand that things get problematic. If they do not have a licence to be hunting, they are most definitely assisting in the hunt and thereby are hunting by definition of the wildlife act.

I take my kids hunting any time I can, and believe me..to date, if they've been assisting anyone....it's been the animals!!!!

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Chet

Did she charge you?

No. She is a solid officer and I don't ever foresee her laying frivolous charges.

We did have a good discussion regarding various interpretations of "Hunting", to the extent that it continued for another coffee.

The broad definition gives officers a very wide selection of ways to charge people and gain access/possession to/of their property.

[FCLightning]

Another real life example - a couple fellows spotted a nice ram. They encased their rifles, crossed the ridge and went for a short walk in the Nat. Park. They left the park, uncased the rifles and shot the ram. They were charged and convicted of hunting in a Nat. Park - and rightfully so. Another example - there is a 1/2 section nature conservancy that holds a pocket of elk. A fellow decides that he should go for a short nature walk one evening. The elk run out of the property right past his partner who is sitting across the road from the restricted area. He is charged with illegal hunting - and rightfully so. Another one from years back involved a small herd of Rams outside Kananaskis. They wandered out somewhere and were "encouraged" across the line to the legal zone where one of them was killed - again the folks involved were charged with illegally hunting and rightfully so.
In your example,you did admit to the fact that you were searching for game in an area you did not have a licence to hunt in. Had you spotted an animal in the park, followed it out of the park then shot it you would likely have had a very different response from the lady that would not press frivolous charges - there would have been no question then that you were hunting in the park.
The act is quite clear that you are allowed to "observe" wildlife, provided you have no weapon and your activities are restricted to that activity only.

[pikeslayer22]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

You are confirming my point.

The interpretation of "hunting" is too vague, however enforcement officers can use this definition as they wish.

A real life example.

A Parks officer pulled up when myself and a buddy were pulled over on the side of a road within a provincial park. She asked what are we doing and if we were hunting. We said that we are just looking for at the scenery in general and for wildlife in particular while having a coffee, however we are not actively hunting as we are in a truck on a highway in a provincial park.....

The Parks officer asked if there was a weapon in the vehicle and if we had hunting licences, which we answered yes to both. She then stated that since we had a weapon in the vehicle and hunting licences and were looking for wildlife that she considers our actions to be actively hunting....

The whole event went fine and the lady was courteous and fair, however her interpretation of the law concluded that the circumstances gave her the right to charge us with hunting in a Provincial Park. This is ludicrous!

An outfitter was charged for doing this exact same thing in WMU 238 last year...he and a client were pulled over glassing a WT buck and CO officer came along...the hunter was licensed to hunt in 254...again they were parked glassing... just crossing one WMU to get to another

[Chet]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

No. She is a solid officer and I don't ever foresee her laying frivolous charges.

We did have a good discussion regarding various interpretations of "Hunting", to the extent that it continued for another coffee.

The broad definition gives officers a very wide selection of ways to charge people and gain access/possession to/of their property.

Glad to hear. I agree with you that there is way too many things open to offcer's inerpretation that can cause alot of grief to law abiding hunters. Always good to bring the scenarios up to make people aware.

[TBark]

Anyone ever notice the first question a CO asks when they are checking you, either in the field or on the road.
After they say hello, they ask, "are we hunting today" ? Or "doing a little hunting" ?
Just be dam careful how you answer that.

TBark

[H380]

Originally Posted by TBark

Anyone ever notice the first question a CO asks when they are checking you, either in the field or on the road.
After they say hello, they ask, "are we hunting today" ? Or "doing a little hunting" ?
Just be dam careful how you answer that.

TBark

Good point and you are correct , but hard to say," No, I 'm not hunting" when the rifle is sitting in the front seat .

[Pathfinder76]

It is not illegal in this province to pack a rifle in your truck.

[anorthernhunter]

Guys- another departure from the topic ...

Everything in life is "grey" ... Ask yourself - are you squeaky white
on your taxes?

What constitutes "cheating" on your wife - a lewd look at another woman, a kiss ....

Come on ... everything in life is grey.

So is hunting ... I am going out with my son - 17, no PAL/POL - just a first time "lets see if you like walking out in the bush - if we see a deer shoot it - safely, humanely" - scenario (yes we have been to the range and he was taught safe shooting/gun handling) ... I called the gun registry ... the Lilly WHITE answer - "You have to be within arms reach of him" ... if we walk around a log - I am out of arms reach ... thus breaking the law ... but in reality ... and this is key: THE SPIRIT of the law/experience is that I need to be close enough to make sure he is handling the gun safely - period.

Grey/White/Black zone ... whatever

The spirit of the concept ...

Lets get along ...

[FCLightning]

Originally Posted by chuck

It is not illegal in this province to pack a rifle in your truck.

But if your answer is "Yes, officer, just a little." then it may be.

[sage 13]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

And exciting!

This is how I earned the name "Walking Buffalo".

I figured it was because you were to full of s--- to run.
Similar to the walking eagle story.

[TRAPPER92]

I carry a rifle in the truck all the time - no law that says I can't!

As for putting a deer out of it's misery after dark - I would think it's the right thing to do even though there's some idiot sitting in an office downtown Toronto that gets it into his/her head that it might be dangerous!

When I check my snares at night you think I would leave a live coyote in it till morning? It's just not ethical.

[J-Driver]

Originally Posted by pikeslayer22

An outfitter was charged for doing this exact same thing in WMU 238 last year...he and a client were pulled over glassing a WT buck and CO officer came along...the hunter was licensed to hunt in 254...again they were parked glassing... just crossing one WMU to get to another

To be fair, I hunt and have family land in both wmus, and a couple of the outfitters have been caught doing plain wrong things, and the COs love nailing them for anything they can. So depending which guys it was......

[biggameassassin]

Sometimes it's good to have a bow for certain situations... Not saying what one

[Big Daddy Badger]

If you are the sort of guy that thinks you need permission...or worries about the consequences of doing the right thing....don't.

For everyone else....
Know the right thing...do the right thing...and be prepared to stand up for it if the axe falls.
Knowing...that you are still a better man than anyone that would fault you for being merciful.

[Jonny O]

I might have a "friend"...whose "moved away" that keeps his bow on hand and has had to use it for that on a couple of unfortunate circumstances. I was told it works really well. No one wants to wound an animal, but it does happen. Not cool to let the animal suffer any more than you have already caused. The law aside, gun shots after dark give landowners bad attitudes towards hunters. Permission is hard enough to get as is.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by Jonny O

I might have a "friend"...whose "moved away" that keeps his bow on hand and has had to use it for that on a couple of unfortunate circumstances. I was told it works really well. No one wants to wound an animal, but it does happen. Not cool to let the animal suffer any more than you have already caused. The law aside, gun shots after dark give landowners bad attitudes towards hunters. Permission is hard enough to get as is.

Just because it doesn't go bang does not make it right to shoot in the dark.

LC

[Jonny O]

Didn't say it was legal Lefty, but I do think it was right. Animal put out of its suffering, no meat wasted, no gunshots concerning landowners, COs or neighbors.

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

You are confirming my point.

The interpretation of "hunting" is too vague, however enforcement officers can use this definition as they wish.

A real life example.

A Parks officer pulled up when myself and a buddy were pulled over on the side of a road within a provincial park. She asked what are we doing and if we were hunting. We said that we are just looking for at the scenery in general and for wildlife in particular while having a coffee, however we are not actively hunting as we are in a truck on a highway in a provincial park.....

The Parks officer asked if there was a weapon in the vehicle and if we had hunting licences, which we answered yes to both. She then stated that since we had a weapon in the vehicle and hunting licences and were looking for wildlife that she considers our actions to be actively hunting....

The whole event went fine and the lady was courteous and fair, however her interpretation of the law concluded that the circumstances gave her the right to charge us with hunting in a Provincial Park. This is ludicrous!

Another prime example of why you shouldn't answer any questions without your lawyer present. Any questions they ask you are designed to collect evidence to use against you.

[Zuludog]

Well I now know what I would do. Smoked a deer last night with my truck. My decision was a no brainer.

[BloodHound70]

Had it happen in the past where one got away on me and found it wounded after dark. No brainer for me. No animal deserves to suffer. Judge me all you want those of you who profess to lead a angelic lifestyle. I would not be able to sleep knowing it was out there like that.

Bh