Printable View
Yes, another one of these threads. We all know the questions will be asked, so I thought I'd share this article by Tom Goldsmith from OODMAG. I hope this helps some of the newcomers.
Download PDF: http://s000.tinyupload.com/download....96983298243039
Seems to be some stuff in the article that is beyond what the law states. It needs to be visible from all sides and 400 in sq. Nothing in the law prohibits backpacks or sandwich vests as long as the vest is visible from all sides. Why does OODMAG feel they have to rewrite the FWCA???
One of the reasons I cancelled my OFAH membership was crap such as this...and the stupidity surrounding photographing game animals.
Remember, the Act is not the law. The law is the Act as interpreted by the courts.
Do you think Tom Goldsmith wrote that thing without sources? You think he didn't talk to the MNR's enforcement branch?
One person's interpretation might be different that the other's. It's a juedge's duty to follow the letter of the law; and as far I I've always been told, the Act is the law.
So much for clearing up the confusion, I suppose. I thought there was something wrong with what I was reading, but I wasn't sure. I too am annoyed with the things coming out of OFAH. I haven't been a member for long, and it probably won't be long before I no longer am if this is the sort I can expect from them.
My apologies for starting another one of these threads. I thought it would help clear things up. Apparently I'm wrong.
No I don't think he did. Otherwise he would have known that the MNR COs in the field don't care if you are wearing a backpack. But they might start now that people have started stirring up crap. I've talked to COs a few times and the blaze orange thing was never an issue. More or less if you try to meet compliance - you're wearing an orange hat and orange vest or jacket - they are good with it. They don't measure square inches or lumens. They don't care if you wear a back pack. If you want to get into technicalities - even wearing a blaze orange backpack would be a violation - because even though it is blaze orange, it obscures the vest or jacket you are wearing - which would be a problem. If people want to get all stupid about this (like they did with Kerr's column on photography), there's no friggin' end to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
I have been checked by C.O.'s for the last 5 years during the controlled hunt, every year I have been wearing my back pack which is in cammo , absolutely nothing has ever been said as I was wearing a full vest and hat of the proper blaze orange colour.
Is this something new or is Tom Goldsmith just giving us "his interpretation " of the law.?
This is almost certainly not Goldsmith's opinion, but the official word from the top levels of the MNR. It would not be surprising if that differs from front-line COs.
Why not publish the opinions of front-line COs? Because they're allowed to talk to the public but they are not allowed to talk to Tom Goldsmith, unless they want to lose their jobs. Nobody in MNR is allowed to talk to any journalist without having their answers vetted by Queens Park.
If MNR tells Goldsmith they consider sandwich vests illegal, and he proceeds to tell his readers that sandwich vests are okay based on his understanding of the law, and a reader gets charged? Not good. He's obligated to report the facts he has, not his opinions.
Instead of crapping all over OOD and Tom Goldsmith for publishing the word from the MNR, folks might consider crapping on the MNR instead.
How do I know this is the word from MNR? Well, I don't -- not for sure. But I do know how these stories get done. I'd be very surprised if Goldsmith's info isn't from a reliable authority.
Then perhaps Goldsmith should have listed in sources. Otherwise, that article is merely an opinion piece. That's my interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
See what I did there? ;)
He cites David Critchlow at MNR.
X2.... What's next, blaze orange firearms !Quote:
Originally Posted by awndray