Printable View
Tell that to the CO who told us that....his words were that if he does not let you retrieve your deer, he is now responsible to make every effort possible to retrieve it and process it as to not waste.....or the owner can be charged.....most times when they hear that they allow you to get it.....all im saying is what the CO told us....Quote:
Originally Posted by brent
Unfortunately the CO is incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deerslayer99
I believe he is. Seen that question posed to a CO many times. If a land owner refuse you to access the dead deer because it ran say 100 yards onto said property. Than that owner is now taking responsibility for the deer. He must handle it properly. I don't know maybe you should be the CO. As every time I have seen this question asked the answer is always the same. Is every CO out there lying??
Quote:
Originally Posted by brent
I also had the same response from muliple CO's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deerslayer99
They are likely saying that if a landowner refused the retrieval of game, he is excercising control over it, which equates to possession.Quote:
Originally Posted by brent
It is an offence for someone in possession of game to allow it to spoil...
Well here is the actual regulation.
But before that, how does one know the deer is even dead on the property?? How can the hunter prove the deer is dead on the neighbouring property and didn't in fact cross into another property? How does the landowner know the deer is actually on his property? (unless you are talking about the deer being dead in plain sight)
Abandoned and spoiled meat, pelts, etc.
Abandonment of meat
36. (1) A hunter or trapper who kills game wildlife other than a furbearing mammal shall not abandon it if its flesh may become unsuitable for human consumption. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 22, s. 2 (18).
Spoiled flesh
A person who possesses game wildlife that is not a furbearing mammal and that was hunted or trapped shall not permit its flesh to become unsuitable for human consumption. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 22, s. 2 (18).
Abandonment or spoilage of pelts
A hunter or trapper who kills a furbearing mammal shall not abandon the pelt or permit the pelt to be spoiled or destroyed. 1997, c. 41, s. 36 (3).
Rick, it's not often I disagree with your posts, and I do agree with your second sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
However, I disagree that exercising control over one's land equates to being in possession of something that may or may not be there.
With the exception possibly of the deer being in plain sight of everyone involved.
What if the landowner refusing permission is incapable of handling a dead deer? And there are many reasons a person may be incapable.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
As well, I can see the OIPRD complaint now....."the CO threatened to charge me if I didn't let somebody enter my private property".
Possession requires control, knowledge, and consent, right?
The landowner who refuses the hunter access arguably has control of the deer, knows he has control of the deer, but how does he consent to its possession? I don't think refusing access establishes that. You can't force a person to be responsible for a thing by dumping it on him.
Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
I can not ever remember being refused entry to private property after being requested to attend by a hunter who had been refused permission to enter private property to retrieve a downed animal and it used to happen a lot during hunting season. Once the cruiser drove in the driveway,the occupier was asked politely for permission for the hunter and they almost always said "OK." It used to piss me off because we had to make a special trip usually when we were in the middle of something else. I could never understand why a landowner/occupier just couldn't be reasonable in the first place. Some people just live to be a**holes.