Bringing a non-hunter along

atlas · #1 10-21-2009, 08:18 PM

I was wondering if anyone had some info on this. I have a friend who's never been hunting but wants to come out. I know I can bring him along but can he do anything other than observe. What I'm trying to say is can he push bush, spot, gut the animal, carry a rifle for self-defence, etc. Does he basically need to hold my hand or what? I know the chances of F&W being around are low but Murphy's law says otherwise. To the letter of the law(or close to it), what can a non hunter do?

rottie · #2 10-21-2009, 08:23 PM

I was told by a Fish and Wildlife Officer just this last week that a non hunter can tag along. However he cannot carry a firearm or assist in the actual hunt in any way, pushing bush ect is not allowed.

Hope this helps
Ian

jaylow? · #3 10-21-2009, 08:25 PM

nope, just like an apprenticeship the greenhorn rides ***** and does what hes asked nothing more and nothing less. could end up ruining your hunt or getting himself hurt. no experience is no experience. let him watch and learn and if he likes what he sees, then its on him to get his hunters ed and his pal and you can take him from there. get him on the binos or field scope and let him know whats going on in the feild. he may just end up having a great time and want more

#4 10-21-2009, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atlas

I was wondering if anyone had some info on this. I have a friend who's never been hunting but wants to come out. I know I can bring him along but can he do anything other than observe. What I'm trying to say is can he push bush, spot, gut the animal, carry a rifle for self-defence, etc. Does he basically need to hold my hand or what? I know the chances of F&W being around are low but Murphy's law says otherwise. To the letter of the law(or close to it), what can a non hunter do?

No pushing bush, no helping spot, no assisting in the hunt. Once the animal is dead though....hand him a knife and then load him up!

thebuckshow · #5 10-21-2009, 10:26 PM

Not to take this is a different direction or anything, but I was also wondering about this too, except a little different scenario. I have a 21 yr old buddy with no pal but a hunter ed. He can hunt with me and carry one of my guns is this correct? Also a younger brother who is 14 but has a hunter ed. Same deal for him?

Versatile · #6 10-21-2009, 11:31 PM

Unless he has a tag he cannot carry a rifle. A Antlered WT tag is general so is an upland bird license so he could carry a shotgun. No matter what if he is carrying a gun he needs to be within arms reach of somone with a PAL and he needs to have a letter of the owner of the gun saying he has permission to have it. Unless he is always within arms reach of the person who owns the gun.

#7 10-21-2009, 11:37 PM

Quote:

No matter what if he is carrying a gun he needs to be within arms reach of somone with a PAL and he needs to have a letter of the owner of the gun saying he has permission to have it. Unless he is always within arms reach of the person who owns the gun.

Where did you get this info?

If he doesn't have a PAL, he needs to be under direct supervision of a PAL or POL licence holder and if he is under direct supervision, no need for a letter.

#8 10-21-2009, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thebuckshow

Not to take this is a different direction or anything, but I was also wondering about this too, except a little different scenario. I have a 21 yr old buddy with no pal but a hunter ed. He can hunt with me and carry one of my guns is this correct? Also a younger brother who is 14 but has a hunter ed. Same deal for him?

As long as they are under direct supervision....yes.

Versatile · #9 10-21-2009, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheephunter

As long as they are under direct supervision....yes.

So what your saying is that if my friend without a PAL borrows a gun off you and goes out with me (with my PAL) he doesnt need a letter from you stating he is allowed to have the gun in his possession? PS. Your not with us at all.

#10 10-22-2009, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Versatile

So what your saying is that if my friend without a PAL borrows a gun off you and goes out with me (with my PAL) he doesnt need a letter from you stating he is allowed to have the gun in his possession? PS. Your not with us at all.

What I'm saying is that your buddy without a PAL can't borrow a gun at all unless under direct supervision of the owner. You could borrow a gun from me because you have a PAL. You need the registration certificate....but no letter.

elkhunter11 · #11 10-22-2009, 07:39 AM

Quote:

As long as they are under direct supervision....yes.

Direct supervision means close enough to take immediate control of the firearm,not in visual ,or voice contact.

monstermulie · #12 10-22-2009, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheephunter

No pushing bush, no helping spot, no assisting in the hunt. Once the animal is dead though....hand him a knife and then load him up!

So you're saying that unless you have a valid hunting licence and tag you can't even spot for game?......

Hmmmm those wildlife watchers are really gonna help drive hunting licence sales.............

#13 10-22-2009, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monstermulie

So you're saying that unless you have a valid hunting licence and tag you can't even spot for game?......

Hmmmm those wildlife watchers are really gonna help drive hunting licence sales.............

That is the direct interpretation of the law yes, but unless a rifle or other weapon is present, obviously no one is hunting. This question was regarding someone accompanying you while hunting, not out bird watching.

monstermulie · #14 10-22-2009, 07:59 AM

I understand the question fully, but unless the non-hunter is carrying a weapon, then he/she is not hunting, and even then if they are carrying a weapon unless they are seen shooting at an animal or killing an animal it can be argued that they are not hunting.

#15 10-22-2009, 08:02 AM

No doubt it can be argued but it makes more sense to me to prevent getting into a situation where you would need to argue it. I've never heard of any F&W officer charging anyone for spotting game without a licence but it also makes sense to me to know the letter of the law.....if you get my drift. I've found in life that those that look for trouble usually find it and those that do their best to avoid it usually do. I prefer avoiding it.

monstermulie · #16 10-22-2009, 08:06 AM

You find me a F&W officer that would even question someone with field glasses in hand thats out in the field with out a licence and I'll praise you as the all mighty lord.

Thats like saying when someone goes fishing and their wife/girlfriend/mistress goes to watch and just sits on the bank with out any lures or a fishing rod needs a licence........pfft ya right

Devlin · #17 10-22-2009, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monstermulie

I understand the question fully, but unless the non-hunter is carrying a weapon, then he/she is not hunting, and even then if they are carrying a weapon unless they are seen shooting at an animal or killing an animal it can be argued that they are not hunting.

So after spending $10,000 on lawyer fees you can prove you were technically right? Good plan.

monstermulie · #18 10-22-2009, 08:13 AM

they would have to cover all legal fees when they lost

#19 10-22-2009, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monstermulie

You find me a F&W officer that would even question someone with field glasses in hand thats out in the field with out a licence and I'll praise you as the all mighty lord.

Thats like saying when someone goes fishing and their wife/girlfriend/mistress goes to watch and just sits on the bank with out any lures or a fishing rod needs a licence........pfft ya right

I'm unaware of anywhere in the Wildlife Act that defines the act of fishing as watching but you may be correct.

Like I said, I doubt you'd find a F&W officer that would do anything but say hello to your buddy with bino but on the other hand, flaunt it in his face and you might get your wish of a day in court.

catnthehat · #20 10-22-2009, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monstermulie

You find me a F&W officer that would even question someone with field glasses in hand thats out in the field with out a licence and I'll praise you as the all mighty lord.

Thats like saying when someone goes fishing and their wife/girlfriend/mistress goes to watch and just sits on the bank with out any lures or a fishing rod needs a licence........pfft ya right

That is the way the letter of the law as it is read, which is what was asked.

No grey areas, just the way the law is written and read.
Fishing and hunting are two different things, as well.
Cat

#21 10-22-2009, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monstermulie

they would have to cover all legal fees when they lost

You don't know much about the legal system do you......

Rarely is the crown ever required to cover anyone's legal costs. You've been watching far too much television.

monstermulie · #22 10-22-2009, 08:23 AM

oh i know a thing hear and there....

elkhunter11 · #23 10-22-2009, 08:34 AM

Quote:

So you're saying that unless you have a valid hunting licence and tag you can't even spot for game?....

Not while assisting a hunter while he is hunting.

Quote:

they would have to cover all legal fees when they lost

In order to recover legal costs,you would pretty much have to prove malicious prosecution,and proving it would require a very straightforward scenario with no gray areas.It happens,but it is far from being common.

Bear · #24 10-22-2009, 08:47 AM

Here is the actual definition of hunt right from the Wildlife 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;

So just the act of following someone as they stalk or look for game is considered a hunt.

It comes down to discretion on the part of the Fish and Wildlife Officer as to if he is going to lay charges. I have had my wife with me while hunting and have been stopped. No problems as we only ever had one rifle and she was 3 steps behind me at the most. No help from her in the stalk or shooting. Now if she was pushing bush that is another story.

So carrying a firearm and not having a license COULD land you in some problems.

And has been pointed out, legal and court costs are on your dime not the crowns. Sorry.

atlas · #25 10-22-2009, 08:49 AM

I had a bad run in with a (6mths on the job) F&W officer. When they're green they may follow the letter of the law more closely. My situation wasn't about this topic but I want to stay as far away from F&W as I can. Once you have a bad one you never want to go back! I realize that most of them are good people. There are bad apples in every profession. Technically, I was wrong in my situation, but I don't want to be technically wrong again.

Cal · #26 10-22-2009, 08:52 AM

Like SH said its important to understand what the letter of the law is so that you can avoid trouble. If you chose to bend those rules a little at least you know not to flaunt it. I myself got into hunting by pushing bush for a buddy and his dad as well they would sometimes allow me to shoot a grouse with one of their guns which I know was illeagal as hell. It made a memorable experience for me and the next year I was out there fully licenced and with my own firearm, had they not bent the rules a little I might not have had much fun and might never have started hunting.

I think the no bush pushing/ game spotting rules are in place to keep people from showing up with 10 unlicenced buddies to drive deer for them. introducing a buddy to hunting while falling under the letter of that law in practice is not usualy punished, just be a little discrete.

#27 10-22-2009, 09:36 AM

You should make a phone call to the right people who are far more qualified to give you the right answer's and save you time and money from court cost's etc. Than takeing legal advice from "members of a messageboard" pretty simple to me.

FishBrain · #28 10-22-2009, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thebuckshow

Not to take this is a different direction or anything, but I was also wondering about this too, except a little different scenario. I have a 21 yr old buddy with no pal but a hunter ed. He can hunt with me and carry one of my guns is this correct? Also a younger brother who is 14 but has a hunter ed. Same deal for him?

Yes your buddies can hunt. If F&W stop you they will ask if there are any weapons in the vehicle, once you say yes (with the big grin) they will have you step out, show your rifles, ask for your tags and licence. If you pull out you PAL they will tell you to put it away because that is the RCMP juresdiction (sp.?).
That is exactly what happened to me in RMH, my cuz and I got stopped. (they were waiting for us on the next road, after they saw him pushing bush and me waiting in the cut) we left, they flip on the lights, we pull over. then she started with exactly what I wrote above. Both my cousin and I were in camo with the Orange hats and vest. (Only ones with orange the whole weekend) When I pulled out my PAL, she said she is only interested in the tags and the licences. then asked why we were not out for elk. lol
Everything went great and the rest of the day when we passed her she would wave.

Last year my neighbour came with me and I armed him with my camera. he stayed a few feet behind me all the time when stalking. It was to my understanding that this was not illegal in any way. He has No licences at all

pdfish · #29 10-22-2009, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Versatile

Unless he has a tag he cannot carry a rifle. A Antlered WT tag is general so is an upland bird license so he could carry a shotgun. No matter what if he is carrying a gun he needs to be within arms reach of somone with a PAL and he needs to have a letter of the owner of the gun saying he has permission to have it. Unless he is always within arms reach of the person who owns the gun.

Nope, you don't need a tag to hunt wolves or coyotes. I got stopped years ago by F&W, actually they followed my tracks into a cutblock. I had my rifle and license for WT and my supplementals, my buddy with me had a .243 that he borrowed from his father-in-law. He had his PAL and hunters ed, but he didn't think he was ready to go for big game, so I told him to come and shoot some coyotes or wolves if we saw one, hence he had no licenses or tags. When I told that to F&W, they didn't even blink an eye, just said good luck, hope you get a wolf.

flygirrl · #30 10-22-2009, 10:30 AM

Go to the Queens Printer, in the search engine type "Wildlife Act" read it over and you may never hunt again LOL....