Bringing a non-hunter along - Page 2

#31 10-22-2009, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdfish

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.

For the most part that would work but just ensure that coyote season is open where you are or that there are wolves in the area and that you are not in a Wildland Park. Flygirrl is right about never hunting again if you read the act....lol

pdfish · #32 10-22-2009, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheephunter

For the most part that would work but just ensure that coyote season is open where you are or that there are wolves in the area and that you are not in a Wildland Park.

But of course.

longshot270 · #33 10-22-2009, 11:19 AM

I firmly agree with flygirrl. Getting back to the definition of hunt, how do people not get charged when taking wildlife photo's. I know of lots of magazines that people could be charged with "hunting out of season". I also had a friend charged with hunting too close to a residence when he drove out in a field to look at some tracks, never got out, never fired a shot. He did beat it in court though(sask.). So is there any real reason why non-hunting friends can't tag along and help out. I would go push bush all day long if asked just because I like to be out in a hunting atmosphere, and that's wheather I had a tag or not. I hunt alone usually so it does not matter to me other than the fact we have too many dumb laws.

flygirrl · #34 10-22-2009, 11:35 AM

And what about all those wives, girlfriends or just friends that tag along with someone who is " Hunting". I often go with my husband because he is senior and I dont like him going by himself. many times Im not hunting just with him, many times we sit on a cut line and watch for deer. I will be charged according to the Wildlife Act. F&W can use discrestion when they want to but in order to get ahead they need convictions. Its called "OPERATION IMPACT" and it means we are broke so go get em. If you read the Wildlife Act and understand it ( good luck) the powers that are given to these officers are way above and beyond the RCMP who put their life on the line each and every day. Each and every hunter tries to do their best when out in the field but The last one that was perfect on this earth was crucified.

elkhunter11 · #35 10-22-2009, 11:38 AM

Quote:

I firmly agree with flygirrl. Getting back to the definition of hunt, how do people not get charged when taking wildlife photo's.

Probably because they aren't hunting,or accompanying a hunter while that hunter is hunting.

flygirrl · #36 10-22-2009, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Probably because they aren't hunting,or accompanying a hunter while that hunter is hunting.

AND....What if my betterhalf is hunting and I have my camera and Im with him...... Im charged........................................... ...............................

Bear · #37 10-22-2009, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flygirrl

AND....What if my betterhalf is hunting and I have my camera and Im with him...... Im charged........................................... ...............................

That's when you get your say in front a judge and plead your case. Any law comes back to intent. Was it your intent to take pictures or help in the hunt? You would have to explain to the judge what your intent was and hope he believes it. Common sense would say that if you don't have a gun and are following the person that does is not in fact hunting and can't have a meaningful impact on the hunt.

#38 10-22-2009, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flygirrl

AND....What if my betterhalf is hunting and I have my camera and Im with him...... Im charged........................................... ...............................

Not as long as you aren't helping him

(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,

No law against accompanying a hunter and taking pictures.

airforce2 · #39 10-22-2009, 11:52 AM

(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,

flygirrl · #40 10-22-2009, 11:56 AM

So, we are sitting there on the cut line looking for deer and Im taking the odd pics. Are we not in effect liying in wait for.......... Common sense dictates what will happen here but is it worth going to court over if some F&W officer decides he wants to charge you... coulda, shoulda, woulda.

Okotokian · #41 10-22-2009, 12:08 PM

Sometimes I think F&W leaves things purposely vague to increase their discretionary powers. The way hunting is defined, I suppose they could charge you if you saw a monster buck in a field while driving by, called your buddy who hunts a few hours later and told him what you saw, advising him to get his &*@#% over there. In this case were you spotting for him and guilty of hunting without a licence?

monstermulie · #42 10-22-2009, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Not as long as you aren't helping him

(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,

No law against accompanying a hunter and taking pictures.

But if she's following him, and he's following the deer then she is following the deer..........

Quote:

Originally Posted by airforce2

(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,

So now she's following him, who's following the deer, so she's actually following the deer WITHOUT a weapon and has the purpose of watching and or photographing the deer.......

Is she "hunting" or not?..........

flygirrl · #43 10-22-2009, 01:43 PM

Depends on the Officer and if he wants to get ahead in his profession... More charges means more advancement. The one thing that bothers me in the Wildlife Act is in effect the reverse onus, your are charged with an offence therfore you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent. So back to the Im sitting in a cutline with someone who is hunting. In effect we are lying in wait, so Im charged and the onus is on me to prove I was not hunting. But in the act it says , lying in wait is an offence, so now I have to prove I was not hunting, just being nice to my hubby or friend HAHAHAH. Its a JOKE>>>>>

#44 10-22-2009, 01:58 PM

Quote:

More charges means more advancement.

Definitely not, especially if those charges don't lead to convictions.

flygirrl · #45 10-22-2009, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheephunter

definitely not, especially if those charges don't lead to convictions.

please spare me>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

#46 10-22-2009, 02:27 PM

Truthfully, any Peace Officer with a high charge rate and low conviction rate is not looked favourably upon and it's definitely not career advancing.

loetv · #47 10-22-2009, 03:12 PM

Hi I call Lethbridge AB F&W officer . you can with your non hunter body go no probblem . Call easy way . many hear bXXh.

MODEL70 · #48 10-22-2009, 03:33 PM

of coarse they can go know one is saying that they cant its what they can and cant do well they are with you thats whast up for debate..i'll stick with sheep hunter on this one ..i would rather be to carfull and not take my chances.but each to there own...

Miithos · #49 10-22-2009, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rottie

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

WTF??? he cant push bush???

#50 10-22-2009, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miithos

WTF??? he cant push bush???

The regs are pretty clear.

Miithos · #51 10-22-2009, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monstermulie

But if she's following him, and he's following the deer then she is following the deer..........

So now she's following him, who's following the deer, so she's actually following the deer WITHOUT a weapon and has the purpose of watching and or photographing the deer.......

Is she "hunting" or not?..........

in leagaleze... NO she is not hunting because while she is following him.. and he is hunting... her intent as per subsection 6 is not do help him.. she is an observer.. and she can accompany him in that position.

After finding out that a buddie cant push bush i went and actiually read the damn laws...<sigh>

flygirrl · #52 10-23-2009, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miithos

in leagaleze... NO she is not hunting because while she is following him.. and he is hunting... her intent as per subsection 6 is not do help him.. she is an observer.. and she can accompany him in that position.

After finding out that a buddie cant push bush i went and actiually read the damn laws...<sigh>

That makes you a Philidelphia Lawyer LOL