I could be wrong, but I am darn sure I am NOT...Family troubles to follow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cintax

I realize that, it just seemed like you didn't want to hear it.

---

There was a little debate over what they are doing being legal or not, but the advise agreed with my option that they are write-offs.

As you have posted:

Section 5(1)(2)
5. (1) A person shall not hunt or trap specially protected wildlife or any bird that
belongs to a species that is wild by nature and is not a game bird. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 22,
s. 2 (5).
Exceptions
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to,
(a) an American crow, brown-headed cowbird, common grackle, house sparrow,
red-winged blackbird or starling;
(b) a bird that is declared to be a migratory game bird in the Convention set out in the
Schedule to the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (Canada);
(c) a bird that has been transported into Ontario, or propagated from stock that was
transported into Ontario, and that is released with the Minister’s authorization
under section 54, other than a specially protected bird or a member of a species
prescribed by the regulations for the purpose of this clause; or
(d) any other bird, other than a specially protected bird, that is hunted with the
authorization

In other words , shoot away, with no restrictions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

As you have posted:

Section 5(1)(2)
5. (1) A person shall not hunt or trap specially protected wildlife or any bird that
belongs to a species that is wild by nature and is not a game bird. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 22,
s. 2 (5).
Exceptions
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to,
(a) an American crow, brown-headed cowbird, common grackle, house sparrow,
red-winged blackbird or starling;
(b) a bird that is declared to be a migratory game bird in the Convention set out in the
Schedule to the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (Canada);
(c) a bird that has been transported into Ontario, or propagated from stock that was
transported into Ontario, and that is released with the Minister’s authorization
under section 54, other than a specially protected bird or a member of a species
prescribed by the regulations for the purpose of this clause; or
(d) any other bird, other than a specially protected bird, that is hunted with the
authorization

In other words , shoot away, with no restrictions

---

You missed this section :
6. (1) Except under the authority of a licence and in accordance with the regulations, a
person shall not hunt or trap,
(a) big game;
(b) a game mammal that is not referred to in clause (a);
(c) a game bird;
(d) a furbearing mammal;
(e) a game reptile;
(f) a game amphibian;
(g) a bird referred to in subsection 5 (2); or
(h) wildlife that is not referred to in clauses (a) to (g), the hunting of which is not
prohibited by section 5. 1997, c. 41, s. 6 (1); 2009, c. 33, Sched. 22, s. 2 (7).

And do not forget the often quoted definition of hunting...
“hunting” includes,
(a) lying in wait for, searching for, being on the trail of, pursuing, chasing or shooting
at wildlife, whether or not the wildlife is killed, injured, captured or harassed, or
(b) capturing or harassing wildlife,
except that “hunting” does not include,
(c) trapping, or
(d) lying in wait for, searching for, being on the trail of or pursuing wildlife for a
purpose other than attempting to kill, injure, capture or harass it, unless the wildlife
is killed, injured, captured or harassed as a result,
and “hunt” and “hunter” have corresponding meanings; (“chasse”, “chasser”, “chasseur”)

Now since the birds are being shot at regardless if they are killed or not it is in fact hunting.
But I think you are just having me on for sport. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

You missed this section :
6. (1) Except under the authority of a licence and in accordance with the regulations, a
person shall not hunt or trap,
(a) big game;
(b) a game mammal that is not referred to in clause (a);
(c) a game bird;
(d) a furbearing mammal;
(e) a game reptile;
(f) a game amphibian;
(g) a bird referred to in subsection 5 (2); or
(h) wildlife that is not referred to in clauses (a) to (g), the hunting of which is not
prohibited by section 5. 1997, c. 41, s. 6 (1); 2009, c. 33, Sched. 22, s. 2 (7).

And do not forget the often quoted definition of hunting...
“hunting” includes,
(a) lying in wait for, searching for, being on the trail of, pursuing, chasing or shooting
at wildlife, whether or not the wildlife is killed, injured, captured or harassed, or
(b) capturing or harassing wildlife,
except that “hunting” does not include,
(c) trapping, or
(d) lying in wait for, searching for, being on the trail of or pursuing wildlife for a
purpose other than attempting to kill, injure, capture or harass it, unless the wildlife
is killed, injured, captured or harassed as a result,
and “hunt” and “hunter” have corresponding meanings; (“chasse”, “chasser”, “chasseur”)

Now since the birds are being shot at regardless if they are killed or not it is in fact hunting.
But I think you are just having me on for sport. :D

---

If they get themselves in hot water,at all, this will certainly do it,over and above any municipal no-discharge by-laws. I have an idiot neighbor that somebody dropped a dime on and it snowballed from the by-law charge to FWCA charges to criminal charges of "careless discharge". By the time they were done,he thought a building fell on him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

If they get themselves in hot water,at all, this will certainly do it,over and above any municipal no-discharge by-laws. I have an idiot neighbor that somebody dropped a dime on and it snowballed from the by-law charge to FWCA charges to criminal charges of "careless discharge". By the time they were done,he thought a building fell on him.

---

Well like many on here have said, I told them the stove was hot. Now if they still have to burn their hands, they can't cry they were not warned.. As I said earlier in the thread, what seemed to bother me the most was how upset the wife got.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

Well like many on here have said, I told them the stove was hot. Now if they still have to burn their hands, they can't cry they were not warned.. As I said earlier in the thread, what seemed to bother me the most was how upset the wife got.

---

Well lets put it this way bud fickle wives are easily replaced and if she gives you a headache over this I guarantee you will be replacing her Lol:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 400bigbear

Well lets put it this way bud fickle wives are easily replaced and if she gives you a headache over this I guarantee you will be replacing her Lol:D

---

She is not giving me any headaches over it. She is majorly PO with them. :cool:

I wouldn't be worried about hunting related infractions. The fact that a neighbor's house was damaged by the discharge of a firearm, regardless of circumstances, can land you in hot water. Careless use of a firearm may be issued.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delmer

I wouldn't be worried about hunting related infractions. The fact that a neighbor's house was damaged by the discharge of a firearm, regardless of circumstances, can land you in hot water. Careless use of a firearm may be issued.

---

Not My problem....I have nothing to do with it, and am just going to let them dig their hole. It's not under my skin any more, I got it off my chest and vented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

Not My problem....I have nothing to do with it, and am just going to let them dig their hole. It's not under my skin any more, I got it off my chest and vented.

---

Now somebody give this fella a cuff and take him out for a beer or three Methinks he got it . Lol