Carry shotgun while filling feeders?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bearhunter

Bushman. You had better wait till the bear is 5 feet away. If I remember correctly the definition of a charging bear that can be dispatched according to the MNR and CFO is approximately 7 feet. Anything further and it is deemed not a threat and cannot be fired directly on.

---

Charging bear at 7 feet...good luck....by the time you decide to shoot it will be on you.

I don't believe the MNR or CFO have ever made any kind of definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brent

Charging bear at 7 feet...good luck....by the time you decide to shoot he will be on you.

I don't believe the MNR or CFO have every made any guide of definition.

---

I was told by a CO close friend that it would help if you had a few stitches to back up your claim. That about removed all doubt. LOL

I'm afraid I don't have one of those high priced shotguns capable pin-point accuracy for shooting at the eye socket on a bobbing head of a charging bear. When I shoot is will be to kill, and it won't be bird-shot. That's how I translate the idea of Survival. It's better, also, to be the carrying the right ammo for the first responds, than chase back afterwards with it. In the meantime leaving a wounded and suffering bear behind in the woods. In fact it is bloody cruel and inhumane, and show a real want of respect for the creature being shot. I understand the MNRF is big on hunter ethics in their Hunter Education Programs, well here is an area where they need to cut hunter some slack in order to exercise proper ethics, instead of treating them with suspicion, because the have a slug or two with them to meet such a situation should it occur. I suspect such a situation is not likely to happen more than once in a or twice in lifetime. If it become a frequent occurrence that's another matter.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

In fact it is bloody cruel and inhumane, and show a real want of respect for the creature being shot. I understand the MNRF is big on hunter ethics in their Hunter Education Programs,

---

Again..your thinking like a 'hunter' not a man trying to save his life...two different scenarios.

It's a point and shoot situation...with whatever you holding..consequences (to the bear) be darned.

Keep the ethics lecture for when there is a choice..

I was told by a forester in BC, they carried shotguns. First round was bird shot, the rest were buckshot then slugs......
Like Brent said, at 7 feet you wouldn't have enough time to realize what was happening, let alone react.

Lol,guides in New Brunswick are NOT ALLOWED to have a gun while tracking a wounded bear during day light hours.

Huh...look at that, Bear spray works...who wouda thunk...

Quote:

---

One man is in hospital after he and another man were charged by a bear while they were riding ATVs in the MD of Bighorn west of Calgary.


EMS and STARS air ambulance were called to the area around Highway 940 and Hunter Valley Road at approximately 8 p.m. on Saturday.


The two men were riding ATVs when they came across a bear and her cubs. When they tried to leave the area, the bear charged and knocked the men from their vehicles. They fired bear spray and the animals soon retreated.
One 31-year-old man was flown to hospital and is in serious but stable condition, while the other man was treated on scene for minor injuries.


There is no word on the type of bear involved in the attack.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/bear-attac...174357951.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

I didn't notice that. The only reason I can think of why it wasn't worded like that is so that every charge laid under that scenario would require scientific technical evaluation by engineering ex perts in every case to prove the rifle,shot size fell within the criteria. That would cost a small fortune every time. The government would never want to spend that kind of money just to prosecute a charge. Of course,this is only conjecture on my part.

No, it wasn't word that way, because that were banking on the fact that industrial standards for manufactured ammunition would eliminate any firearm that was not a rim-fire, check the muzzle energy of a 22 Hornet the smalls of the 22 center-fires, I think it's muzzle energy ranges a little over 700 ft-lbs. What was overlooked was the fact that there is no requirement for reload ammunition to meet industrial standards. So without speaking to a firearm's capability, any ammunition loaded below 400 ft-lbs of muzzle energy should qualify the firearm to be use, irrespective of its disqualifying potential, should manufacture ammunition be used. Hence the regulation is flawed, in so far as it does not speak to the firearms capability. Apparently a CO has some discretion in dealing with such a situation, but I suspect, the CO will site you because of the caliber of the firearm, since he/she has no means of field testing the ammunition, which means you will probably have to convince a judge that the wording of the regulation is badly flawed and at best ambiguous. The fact, that one of the heads in the enforcement branch has already sent me his version of this regulation inserting into it the word 'capable' (when it isn't there in print) suggest to me that this is likely the way they are prepared to go with it.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
-Gun Nut

Oh yeah,this would be a really bad scene without doubt. Wounded Bears should be avoided at all costs. If one needs to shoot,kill it. Let the chips fall where they may. Like I and someone else posted,it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

---

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
-Gun Nut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

I didn't notice that. The only reason I can think of why it wasn't worded like that is so that every charge laid under that scenario would require scientific technical evaluation by engineering ex perts in every case to prove the rifle,shot size fell within the criteria. That would cost a small fortune every time. The government would never want to spend that kind of money just to prosecute a charge. Of course,this is only conjecture on my part.

No, it was word that way, because they were banking on the fact that industrial standards for manufactured ammunition would eliminate any firearm that was not a rim-fire, check the muzzle energy of a 22 Hornet the smalls of the 22 center-fires, I think it's muzzle energy ranges a little over 700 ft-lbs. What was overlooked was the fact that there is no requirement for reload ammunition to meet industrial standards. So without speaking to a firearm's capability, any ammunition loaded below 400 ft-lbs of muzzle energy should qualify the firearm to be use, irrespective of its disqualifying potential, should manufacture ammunition be used. Hence the regulation is flawed, in so far as it does not speak to the firearms capability. Apparently a CO has some discretion in dealing with such a situation, but I suspect, the CO will site you because of the caliber of the firearm, since he/she has no means of field testing the ammunition, which means you will probably have to convince a judge that the wording of the regulation is badly flawed and at best ambiguous. The fact, that one of the heads in the enforcement branch has already sent me his version of this regulation inserting into it the word 'capable' (when it isn't there in print) suggest to me that this is likely the way they are prepared to go with it.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
-Gun Nut

Oh yeah,this would be a really bad scene without doubt. Wounded Bears should be avoided at all costs. If one needs to shoot,kill it. Let the chips fall where they may. Like I and someone else posted,it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

---

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
-Gun Nut

Unfortunately us honest hunters pay the price of dishonest poachers. Those who try to circumvent the law buy carrying slugs without the proper big game licences when required have screwed it up for us honest guys who would like to carry a slug or 2 for protection. If we turned in and got rid of more poachers, the c.o.'s might let up a little where common sense could prevail.