A couple of acquaintances took their pre hunting sons to the bush for opening day. Stayed with their dad's at close proximity and carried no gun. Game warden said it was a no no?
Printable View
A couple of acquaintances took their pre hunting sons to the bush for opening day. Stayed with their dad's at close proximity and carried no gun. Game warden said it was a no no?
Need more info. Were the kid's wearing the appropriate amount of blaze orange, were they active in the hunt ? pushing bush?
Sad!!
I Michigan they welcome the kids to hunt with a mentor or parent as early as 6 years old....
That is one stupid law if true. My first hunts ever when I was about 7 years old out with my dad during the gun hunt. I didn't carry a gun but I can still remember my dad shooting a nice 8 point buck. I think that experience made me the hunter I am today.....
They want new young hunters, But wont let them go out to hunt at a young age?
Need more info. But if it is as you state I would have asked for the ticket and gone to court over that.
I believe it and I bet the CO was in his right too but it's plenty retarded..... He might push the bush with his dad, and some in here will defined that as "poaching", but how are we supposed to get more young into hunting to buy tags and permits to support the MNR if they don't start by pushing the bush (with the appropriate equipment)?!?
I don't know if i understand where you're going with that. The OP said the kids were "pre hunting" which i read/assumed meant too young for the young hunters program.Quote:
Originally Posted by seabast
If they're that young, they shouldn't be pushing the bush at all, with or without "appropriate equipment" (what do you mean by that?).
If your kid is just sitting on watch with you, or walking along with you, no CO is going to care. But if you start using a child as another active body in a hunt... you're in deep doo-doo and should be.
Sorry, I meant that they should at least wear the appropriate amount of blaze orange.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oddmott
And as I mentioned before, I understand that the CO is in his right but it doesn't make it right to me, IMO.
What does "close proximity" mean here? Unless they were attached at the hip, the CO would be right. This question was answered by Dave Critchlow, MNRF Enforcement Supervisor in an OOD issue. They can accompany, but take no active part in the hunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ontdon
Remember, the Liberals has turn Ontario into a nanny state. The kids must hold a hunter apprenticeship safety card.
No they don't !Quote:
Originally Posted by lanarkhunter
Need more info on this????????
If it was a control hunt it would might be understandable as they are trying to control
the numbers as a licensed hunter I could not sit with anyone without a control validation
As long as they are not participating in anyway, they are legal. I have researched this fully.
As I stated in my original post " Close Proximity to the hunter" arms length. Their fathers would also have them outfitted appropriately in Hunter Orange.
If they are not hunting, not in any way, then they do not require any hunter orange and also do not need to be licensed.
It seems as though the OP was asking a question.
If the CO is walking around charging people for having their kids with them they are just idiots, they need someone to go after this in court and have the judge put them in their place.
I was 5 when I started shooting with dad, the 22LR.
I was 7 or 8 when I first started going hunting with him, just sat beside him.
I was 15 when I was hunting with him, with my minors permit and full hunting license, if the apprenticeship happened back then I would have been hunting at 12.
It's a dumb law that we should be pushing the gov't to change.
Humans have been taking their kids to hunt with them since we have been on this Earth. It is completely ethical and natural - nanny state-ism at it's worst!
I spoke to a CO about this last year. As long as a person is not aiding the hunt they are OK to be there. Help call, sit in another blind or tree stand, carry equipment, push the bush, gut or drag an animal and they need a license.
HD
Im a died in the wool poacher if kids cant come hunting. Screw that!!!!
S.
Actually, an unlicensed person can assist in the recovery of legally killed game. We checked this out when a buddy from the States came moose hunting with us. Also, the response from David Critchlow, MNRF Enforcement Specialist, in OOD, Ask a CO, article, indicated the same. When in doubt, call the MNRF.....Quote:
Originally Posted by huntingdad
A CO can only comment on what the law legally allows so a CO can't tell you to take your kid out hunting if he's under age.
But are they going to enforce this to the letter of the law, I highly doubt it. I've never seen or heard of it in my lifetime.
Seems to me we aren't hearing everything. I have a hard time believing the CO doesn't understand the laws he is charged with enforcing...and by the report of the OP the CO is wrong....just does not add up.
I too will gladly carry the name of poacher in this case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinker
The OP stated they were pre-hunting.Assuming they were out in the woods with the kids,the CO was w-a-a-y-y out of line. There's no way anyone needs a hunting license simplyto be out in the woods with the kids. Somehow,I think there's a lot more to the story than that.
I think you misread the OP. I take it as "prehunt kids" as being too young for the youth program. He also said "opening day". I'm not sure I'd want my young kids walking through the bush with me, with a group of other hunters. Sitting in a blind or on watch is a totally different issue. But, there's more to this incident than we know.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
It could be wrong, but I believe their is a difference between the control hunt and regular hunting season. One year, I had an ankle operation and asked a CO if I could get some to help me drag the buck. No was the response. That partisipating in the hunt. The control hunt is more about controlling the number of hunters.
I went hunting with my father in the mid 50's. Theirs more to the story. They must have been .partisipating.
id say it depends on if they were active in the hunt or just sittin on the stand with dad... if they were just sittin there then I don't see how they are hurtin anyone just learning about the outdoors and spendin time with dad
Very likely. We get all these things filtered through the perception of the person reporting the story. Ask the CO and you might get an entirely different view of events.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
Here is the definition of hunting according to the reg book.
Includes lying in wait, serching for, being on the trail of, pursuing, chasing or shooting at wildlife, weather or not the wildlife is killed, injured, captured or harassed. You need a hunting licence to do any of these things except where the fish and wildlife conservation act 1997 states otherwise.
I know its a silly rule, i remember being out with my dad when i was just 6 or 7.
What's silly about it? Its an inclusive definition that became necessary because some borderline hunters just had to push the boundaries of whats fair chase and whats not fair chase.
I guess i find it hard to take one child who has taken the hunter apprenticeship and have to tell the other who is only 2 years away from being eligible that they cant sit in the stand with me. Not saying that the definition is silly, what i ment is that its silly you cant take kids to sit with you.
If the kid has no intention to kill, or participate in a hunt what's the problem? Either something is missing in this story or the C.O. is way out of line, and want's to climb the ladder. When it comes to a charge , it all boils down to discretion of the Officer. And it will be up to you to fight it in court, but a lot of C.O.s hope you don't show up in court after being charged.
My interpretation of the definition is that sitting in a stand with me is " lying in wait".
According to the Enforcement Specialist David Critchlow, you can take your kids providing they take no active part in the hunt. That would include pointing out game for you. But, once game has been killed, they can assist in recovery......can't get much better than that. This was in response to the question in Ask a CO, article in OOD.
Glad that isn't my take on it....because then this also would be illegalQuote:
Originally Posted by tenpoint guy
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...ps7e309fea.jpg
IMO it's your natural right to bring your children along and teach them how to hunt. There should be zero regulation of this beyond basic safety. Silly is too mild a word to describe it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tenpoint guy
I agree with fratri and if they want to charge me for taking my kid's go for it.
However I suspect we are not hearing the whole story.
He looks pretty happy.
just teach them to clean the bird's and then all you have to do is shoot the geese. :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by fratri
I believe you are missing the second part of the definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by tenpoint guy
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,
In essence as the purpose for the kid (or any other unlicensed individual observer) is to observe the hunt...and not to kill, injure, capture or harass it...and being that the kid's action of strictly observation would not result in the wildlife being killed, injured, captured or harassed...then no observing Dad hunt is not hunting...in fact if on the stand (or in a blind) it probably in most cases makes Dad's hunt less successful in terms of killing game.
As a few have said...has to be more to the story.
Why has ontdon not come on the thread to answer some of these questions? Only 44 post in 4 years. Maybe he was just fishing?
Nicely said Sawbill, and thank you FW, you beat me to it.
I am sometimes utterly surprised how often this topic comes up. I'm almost as surprised by how often when referring (rightfully) to the letter of the law people don't include the full definition. It' critical. Im actually surprised the MNR only quotes the first half.
The letter of the law is quite clear, it's also not "silly". As worded it makes clear and it gives COs the ability to apply the spirit or not depending on what they witness/see (devil details). Personally, I don't think it could be worded any better. The critical second half, enables COs to charge non hunters in non hunting scenarios with infractions. Aka some douchbag using a rabbit as a football for field goals, aka some douchebag doing A to Z. Imo don't be so paranoid that they are "out to get us"…..
Is it "possible" a child/observer might get charged?
Yes, and why not. (devil details)…more importantly is gives COs the ability to charge non hunters who don't know much about game, or animals, their behaviors and so much more, or care much about game, animals, conservation…….
Quote:
Originally Posted by sawbill
In this/these "specific" set of devil details?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishy Wishy
Is pushing deer not harassing them?
Yes it is. We push (harass) them, so that we can shoot and kill them.
The difference between "observing" and "aiding"?
Thats for a CO to decide.
Here's a "what if" scenario.
You go out with your young son with your rifle, take a watch. Suddenly around 9:30am an activist anti and some friends show up and start making all kinds of racket….interferring with the hunt, bumping deer, scattering them to the 9 acres from the woodlot. Who knows what may/may not happen…...
Anyone think the letter of the law is "silly"?
Am pretty sure there have been threads about "non hunters" ruining hunts. Harassing game….
Like usual Jben, sawbill and FW are on the ball.
I believe there is much more to this storey then we have been told. I am not worried what so ever about having my son with me in a deer blind, grouse hunting, goose hunting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
I was not fishing. Asked an honest question hoping for intelligent answers. spend my time hunting not posting. O
Fair enough ontdon but we don't know the circumstances why the CO said no kids and therefore cannot provide you with the intelligent answers you are looking for.
Whether it works or not I guess it really depends on how it makes us feel out there. If we are successful when we wear it ...it will make us feel even better. Some people will catch one fish on a lure and next thing you know they swear by it.
The new cammo patterns are a marketing tool to keep selling to us that are attracted to new gadgets in the hope it will make up for some of our limitations.
Huh ??????Quote:
Originally Posted by redd foxx
Wrong thread red foxx,Quote:
Originally Posted by redd foxx
camo thread is that way ---------------------------------------------------->
;)
As for the OP, something isn't passing the sniff test here. Any time I have ever met a CO, it has been a professional exchange. I have no doubt the CO's could catch me on minor stuff but I think they are more concentrated on the guys who break the big rules.
Dyth
This pic was taken 12 years ago this fall and happens to be the last time I saw a CO. he had a good chuckle , checked my outdoors card and wished us luck. I still remember like yesterday my daughter squealing " daddy chicken" when I picked up the grouse.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.n...9812a3a99a95af
You will find the answer on page 20, May/2014 issue of OOD.
I guess we will never know ?
im pretty sure its legal but they need an apprentice licence, that's what I had and was told anyways
TurkeyRookie you better delete your hero shot thread....they might come out to get you. LOL
Sorry for the cammo post. Not sure how that happened.
No,they don't as long as they're merely along for the ride and not participating in the hunt,but,they're allowed to help field dress,drag a deer out or,in the case of upland and waterfowl,retrieve birds. I took my kids out and now my grandkids without any issue whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by WalleyeMaster
Exactly, it is no different than anyone just going for a walk in the bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
How many bird watchers or nature hikers are charged with illegal hunting?
I see no difference, your kid is just there, they are not hunting, they are observing nature and maybe snapping a picture or two.
You missed part of that regulation when quoting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tenpoint guy
As well, how old were the kids???
If they are under 12 they can't be charged with anything anyways...
Some of you better seek info from a CO . Your certainly not getting the correct answers here.
Sez you from New Brunswick. I'm not sure your provincial regs are anything like ours in Ontario from what I'm told. Are you even allowed to hunt in the Liberal end of Canada? LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Greenhorn
Great pic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter John
I just moved to NB last year .lived in Windsor Ontario Since 1979. I still own a farm in Harrow, Ontario, and had a controlled hunt tag every year since 96. I contacked a CO one year because I had an ankle operation and could only walk with crutches. " I asked if I killed a buck could I get any body to help drag the deer. NO,unless they had a controlled tag. dragging ,butchering is considered in the definition as hunting. Brent.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
The original post made no mention of any controlled hunt so it was assumed the enquiry was about a hunt in general. The correct answer to his post has been correctly answered--a few times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenhorn
Now this is interesting, say I have no friends that hunt and I never skinned an animal before, its too heavy for me to put in the truck or hang by myself..... what am I to do, leave it to rot? Dragging, skinning or butchering is not hunting the animal.... That all takes place after the animal is hunted/killed...
If this infact is the law, its a silly one and who would get charged, the land owner or my neighbor for coming down with his ATV to help load it?
Controlled hunt regulations change everything from firearm usage to party hunting depending on specifics in each WMU,but,in other WMU's that don't have a "controlled" hunt,having an unlicensed person assist in retrieval as you described isn't an issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by fratri
Without doing a bit of digging into the regs, I'm pretty sure the controlled hunts only regulate Hunter numbers. Party hunting etc still remains the same, providing everyone has a controlled hunt validation. The definition of "hunting" does not change.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
This poor dead horse is sure gettin' a whoopin'.......
I agree Rick.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
The definition of hunting does not change. Observing is not hunting...therefore the observer is not a hunter...controlled hunt does not apply to them.
Retrieval and butchering does not fall into the already (properly) quoted definition of hunting from the FWCA...therefore is not hunting...controlled hunt rules do not apply.
Controlled hunt rules do not apply in these cases towards an observer or some one helping retrieve any more than it does on a random pedestrian raking a walk through the woods. Greenhorn...you were not given proper advice...or misunderstood...or the CO misunderstood the question.
If someone gets the digital edition of OOD, maybe check page 20, May/14 edition and cut and paste the Ask a CO article.......
Attachment 27281 How's this?Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
full definition:
“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”)
That should work !!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishy Wishy
there needs to be less restrictions on youth hunters wishing to accompany an adult on a hunt in Ontario is the bottom line. unfortunately there are those who have abused and continue to abuse their rights, and thus we have strict laws and less opportunity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishy Wishy
Very good and very sensible.....
But the article contradicts your comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by rumbleram
my comments have no direct tie to the article...just a generalization
if you read the letter of the law vs the CO answer in OOD ... the CO answer in fact contradicts the law... as it states one may not even "lay in wait" of an animal if the result is the animal being killed...
Bottom line.... take your kids hunting with you, enjoy them while they are young, just don't let them participate in the hunt until you have to recover your game.....
Poor horse !!!!!! LolQuote:
Originally Posted by rumbleram
This is why the CO states the kid (actually any unlicensed observer) cannot spot game for you. Should they point out the game they are hunting...otherwise how would their lying in wait cause game to be killed? See no contradiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by rumbleram
Guns and Roses had a song about this thread!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
Sometimes I feel like I'm beating a dead horse. I don't know what could be bringin' me down.
if they are lying in wait with someone who is hunting and as a result the animal is killed ... then they are hunting - BY DEFINTION of the laws. it does not say they have to be involved in causing the death of animal... sittin there with dad.... dad is hunting...result is dad shoots a deer - then they were ,by definition, hunting....
regardless i'm not here to dispute minute interpretations of the law - as I do not agree with kids not being allowed to hunt or accompany adults while hunting. after all I'm chairman of our Delta Waterfowl chapter and our main goal is youth movement in hunting populous.
take your kids hunting...if you don't hunt - send them with someone who does.
Believe that if you want but it is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by rumbleram
The word "result" indicates a cause and effect relationship.
Lying in wait beside your dad, mother, brother, uncle or pet sasquatch will not cause your dad.....or pet sasquatch to kill game. The observer being there did not result in game being killed.
Part D of that reg was put in place to relieve bird watchers and photographers among others from the classification of hunting...the part about unless it results in killing of game is to prevent their actions from causing death...such as chasing deer to exhaustion or to a highway collision etc.
I agree...and do so legally with no fear of wrongdoingQuote:
Originally Posted by rumbleram
Lol Rick and FW wouldn't beating a horse be hunting ;)
I am surprised how often this gets hashed out, when a) its pretty clear….b) its been covered so many times…..c) and the MNR has addressed a number of times.
/sigh
Rumblum, I suppose if Im lying in wait as I do so very often as a professional photographer both for myself, as a freelancer ( various people, companies, magazines buy my images) And a WT trips over me and breaks its neck, yeah technically by the letter of the law some CO might say "your hunting".
As a contributor to Ontario Out of Doors where sometimes Im asked/sent to go to X with a writer and take the pics as they hunt…Or go get something myself.
I don't have my Turkey liscence…Ive gone on Turkey hunts for them.
This was one…Here you go MNR I and OOD are breaking the law, heres the proof….come charge me.
http://jbenphotography.ca/img/s9/v93/p1554298148-6.jpg
Was I hunting when I took this pic? Wearing my Orange? No, oops guess I and OOD are in trouble.
http://jbenphotography.ca/img/s11/v31/p100108072-6.jpg
The day I took this pic I was just coming out of my divorce and didn't have my liscence. Guess OOD and myself are in trouble, especially because this was an "assignment" where they asked me to travel to SW Ontario to get this cover shot
http://jbenphotography.ca/img/s2/v1/p334343025-6.jpg
The key operative words in the definition are anyone can go….they aren't hunting, (aiding) unless their actions result in game being Harassed, captured, injured, killed.
A child calling…yeah technically thats illegal. Their actions are resulting in the birds being shot. I know many are perfectly ok with (to each his own)..
I can't call worth a lick., Im horrible There are kids who are better callers (champions) than many adults. Anyone mind if I have a kid like that call while I unload shell after shell?
Unless game is injured, killed, harassed, captured as a result of a persons (non hunters) actions.
Its all good
What people forget when they read the letter of the law and then subject it to their own interpretation is that their interpretation has about the same value as a fart in the wind.
Charges get laid, or don't get laid, as a result of the CO's interpretation, not yours. And the answer to "Ask a CO" in the magazine is not the opinion of just one CO. A CO, or any other MNRF employee, is not allowed to so much as cough in response to a question from OOD without permission from on high. It can take weeks to get an answer to even the most innocuous question. You can bet that answer has been cleared through MNRF as the official MNRF response. MNRF's enforcement policy is that the kid isn't hunting unless he is actually assisting in the hunt.
And then, if charges do get laid, you get convicted as a result of the court's interpretation, not yours. A court is going to rely on the ordinary meaning of "lying in wait." This idiom carries an additional meaning beyond merely waiting: it means to wait with the intent of attacking. (Kindly look it up in a dictionary of English idiom before disputing this.) An unarmed kid accompanying a hunter cannot be "lying in wait," by definition. Anyone who suggests that the ordinary idiomatic meaning of "lying in wait" is replaced by another meaning here will have to do so by digging up case law. Good luck on that.
So in summary, simply having your kid with you is only against the rules if (a) the CO decides to go beyond the normal policy, (b) the CO decides today is a good day to be an a-hole, and (c) a judge decides to go against the ordinary rules of interpretation.
Going back to the OP, this is a second-hand report. Nobody knows what really happened here and everyone is speculating. This isn't much more productive than debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
is that Hainer on the Rondeau Bay cover?
Hes like my older Brother…He was a lot better looking back then (lol) but he's still a world class guy :)
I'll be seeing him in a few weeks, if you know him say hi for me pls.
J
nicely said Welsh.
The FWCA definition is pretty darn clear….Then its for COs to decide based on what they see, what they think a person intent was/is, etc, etc. As is, it gives them the ability to go after non hunters that are being idiots, abusing game, whatever.
Go, bring kids, friends, whatever…they want us to. If you must…. keep a basic principle in mind, remember fair chase and that 2nd half of the definition.
Its not hunting unless………..
Thanks Species. It was a special day for sure and Kate had her first taste of grouse that evening.
you've gotta be in violation of a fistful of laws posting his mug on a cover! lol I kid - he is indeed a great guy!!! will say 'hi' if im talkin to him before u see him
Was checked by a CO this week...with my 11yr old tagging along..he had zero issues..we were deerhunting. He was sitting with me and we were checked walking out..no issues. We were checked turkey hunting as well last spring...no issues. It was obvious he wasn't helping to hunt but was observing.
Lmao Rumblum. :)
Like a slightly older brother he is. I'll be hunting with him in 47 mid Dec.