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
I agree with Werner on this.... here's the answer I got from a CO when this discussion came up last year.
Hello,
I'm curious about blaze orange requirements when wearing a backpack. Obviously, a backpack will cover up a significant portion of the blaze orange vest. Would you consider this as having less than the required 400 sq inches of visible material? Are there other variables to consider? I suppose a 250 lb man would have more visible blaze than someone who is 150 lb. It came up in a discussion recently and would like to have some clarification.
Thanks,
Greg
Hello,
Thank you for your inquiry. We apologize for the delay in responding to your email.
As long as you are wearing the required 400 square inches there should be no problem. You should remember however that wearing a backpack that covers a large portion of your hunter orange makes you less visible to other hunters. You may choose to purchase an orange backpack or cover your existing backpack with a piece of orange fabric or an orange vest.
We hope you have found this information helpful. If you require further assistance contact the Natural Resources Information Centre toll free at 1-800-667-1940.
Regards,
NRIC web reader - AD
*******************************************
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Natural Resources Information Centre
300 Water Street
Peterborough, ON K9J 8M5
1-800-667-1940
TTY: 1-866-686-6072
Fax: 705-755-1677
[email protected]
I'm sick and tired of it: We spend so much time trying to holistically understand some of the dumbest hunting rules in the world. Long story short wear as much orange as you feel comfortable with: If you wear a hat with some camo on it your not compliant regardless if you were to wear an orange bunny suit. Head to toe blaze-camo is doesn't count, but it's for sure visible unlike a tiny vest and ball cap in the bush.
Next you know the MNR will tell us what knitting pattern we have to use for our gun socks - a discussion for another day!
Nothing is being done about hail marry shooting, ethical hunting etc.
Common sense is difficult to enforce that's why we deserve those BS rules, or is it to keep us in our place feeling guilty as soon as we see a CO that we might have misinterpreted something?
It's nit-picking on the interpretation of the law and it has got a couple of details its nit-picking on dead wrong. If the guy writing the article spent more time in the field, he'd have run into COs and would know that what he was being told by Critchlow was wrong. Why print an article with wrong information?Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
You're missing my point entirely. If that information is supplied by Critchlow, it is the official word and therefore is not "wrong," even if COs in the field are more lenient. Critchlow's job is to be the Official Word on the regs -- he is the guy who provides the media answers for all questions of what the regs mean.
If I am writing a magazine story, and I get info from some CO in the field, and I go to confirm it with Critchlow and he says otherwise, I have to treat the CO in the field as wrong. To do otherwise would be simply printing my own opinion, which is exactly what you say I shouldn't do.
If you don't like the message, don't shoot the messenger.
What we don't know for sure is whether or not all of what what printed in the article was discussed with Critchlow.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
What I do know for sure is that I have encountered CO's in the field around here Peterborough, in the Haliburton area and in Northwestern Ontario on more than a few occasions and never once has a CO had an issue with a backpack covering blaze orange. In every case I was with other hunters and all of us wear a backpack and vest in the same manner. In one particular case, you could tell the CO was having a particularly bad day and would likely have laid a charge for something if he could, yet he did not have an issue with the backpack covering the orange.
I understand your point here Welsh, but this is really not an issue with CO's in the field. All this type of article does is make it harder for newer hunters or excessive worry-warts to get into the field. Put on a blaze hat and vest, put a little more on if it makes you feel safer and go hunting. Use common sense and don't worry about every stupid little minor detail that may or may not get you into trouble if the wrong CO just so happens to run into you on the wrong day.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying this is an issue with COs in the field, or that the interpretation is right. Some of the things in that article raised my eyebrows, and I would have said they were wrong.
I'm simply saying that it's wrong to assume Goldsmith made this up. We don't know that everything here was discussed with Critchlow, sure. But I've written for outdoor magazines all across North America over the years, and I can't think of one that would allow me to write my unsourced personal opinion on what regulations say. That's strictly amateur hour.
This section is one of those, that are open to a wide range of interpretation. The Act says you have to wear the legislated garments, but it does not say that all or a portion must not be covered up. It's no different than a hunter dressed in proper orange clothing, but sitting in a camo blind. Totally legal to do.
The way I look at it our laws are so gray ....that if you piss a CO off ...they will find a reason to charge you ! BE NICE ! They have a job to do too ! Good luck and play safe !
Glen
How many of us have gone 5km over the limit right by a cop? Doesn't make it legal.
Officer's discretion. If you're trying to comply you're likely ok. Give them attitude or have other legal issues and they might just add another charge.
There is the black and white of the law as it is written. Then there is the interpretation that everyone puts on it, including each and every law enforcement officer who is out there enforcing it. if a charge is laid, and it is taken to court, the J.P. will decide who is right and who is wrong depending on his/her interpretation of the black and white of the written law. At the end of the day, the supreme court will ultimately decide who was right and wrong based on the black and white of the law, assuming it gets that far.
David Critchlow, a senior advisor is still giving his opinion based on his experience, knowledge and interpretation of the law. He is not a judge. He's a pretty smart guy though :)
All this commotion and people still forget that they'll never see a CO out in the bush :)
LOL. That's the truth.
Especially at this time from all the senior officers retiring,they're stretched ridiculously thin. The saving grace is that there's more OPP officers who hunt and fish and are really stepping up,but,they can't do it all,either. Something needs to change.Quote:
Originally Posted by x_xeon_x
If you hunt in 16c you will be checked most every day by the C O's . They even stopped at our camp site twice after 10 p m .Quote:
Originally Posted by x_xeon_x
People seem a bit idealistic about CO's and police. In some cases they are not correct. When it comes to firearms laws especially many police just don't know the laws or choose to interpret it with personal bias.
Use your heads and wear blaze. It can save your life or you from making a tragic mistake.
Just bought a $180 strap vest, with some hunter orange on it.
As soon as I seen the article, I panicked, put on a hunter orange vest, then my strap vest. I then tried to pull the front halves over the black straps to cover them up with orange......kinda worked.
So now I know better, and what a CO will let go, or better, accept. Otherwise a strap vests would be illegal to wear. Also, does it have to be a vest? How about a hunter orange jacket, or pullover??
This artical was probably just filler, gave very little information, and just caused confusion.
My two cents.
Don.
Strap vests are great but none meet minimum blaze legislation. I wear additional blaze garments with mine. You only need to comply with blaze requirements if hunting in a zone with an open firearms season for big game at the time though. Doesn't matter if you are bird hunting or big game hunting. If the season is on you need to comply with blaze regulations.
I was going to say, no one in the camps around here wear 'vests' at all....everyone wears Blaze Jackets or Coveralls. My wife made me a Hoodie out of Blaze fleece that gets worn more than anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by zoli 16ga.
CO...what's a CO..haven't seen one in the field in 16 yrs..:)
I wear a blaze orange jacket in the controlled hunt ,,as we hunt in December and it is warmer ,never had much luck with a vest over a winter coat ,,Dutch
I like a jacket but the wife is just getting into hunting and womens clothing is a pain to find and no mens clothes actually fit women properly so an orange vest for over her womens cut camo coat is all we can do on our budget and it is 100% legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchhunter
How can you say it does not meet the requirements? Have you measured them? I bet on a 200lb guy most of the strap vests with the entire lower section in blaze orange would meet the requirements for 400 sq inches.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
That being said, you only need blaze orange to be legal when there is an open gun season for deer, moose or elk, upland game hunting and small game hunting has no orange requirement legally speaking unless there is a big game gun season open.
They probably could put enough blaze on a strap but the in fact put a minimum it seems. Western bird hunters are the target market for them and they don't worry about copious amounts of blaze. My Browning Bird n Lite vest would not qualify, too much brown on it. There is more room in the strap adjustment based on size, not fabric usually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
That was by no means a knock, just a question as to if you measured it. 400 sq inches is not actually that much, I just grabbed a tape at my desk here and without any orange on the sides and as I sit in a T-shirt, the front of my chest is 300 sq inches, so just having a flap from my neck to my belt and side to side on both the front and back is 1.5x the legal requirement of blaze orange for big game hunting. If you toss in some orange on the size I go up even more.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
I haven't found a bird vest with 400 square inches. And I think that Browning Bird-n-Lite vest is one of the "blaziest" vests out there. Most upland hunting clothing won't qualify as the blaze portion is only on the shoulders and half the back, and doesn't cover 400 sq in. During big game gun seasons I wear a blaze orange shirt with my strap vest.
So here is my new strap vest (a Q5 Upland hunter). Your looking at 286 sq. inches (measured, not including the hat). So with a vest underneath (early season), or a blaze jacket it should be fine.
Attachment 30554
No blaze on the front of it at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by zoli 16ga.
That is about right for just the back, that seems like it will work great for upland until the gun seasons for big game open up though.
Only straps on the front, like a back pack. I ALWAYS wear an orange garment when hunting, so the front will have orange visable also.
see here - http://www.q5outdoorproducts.com/pro...and-bird-vest/
Don.
P.S - I gave it a good run for three days last weekend.....great vest!
I wear an orange vest at minimum when hunting for anything but archery, waterfowl and turkey.Quote:
Originally Posted by zoli 16ga.
The crazy part though is that we do not wear orange for archery deer but bird hunters could be walking around shooting into the trees at any time you are deer hunting with a bow, how safe is that for you in the tree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
I have a Browning upland jacket with a full blaze orange back,across the shoulders and half way down the front thatI use for everything. I've talked to several CO's and have never had it questioned,yet.
This is exactly why I don't use tree stands. Bird hunter swings on flushing birds and you're right in the line of fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
This thread brings to mind the saying, "No good deed goes unpunished."
Tom Goldsmith's article and the associated illustrated summary is certainly consistent with what many of us already understand to be the Province's standard for the implementation of the regulation. Tom Goldsmith certainly appears to have first done his homework.
There's no doubt that individual CO's have different interpretations of the regulation. I too have received varying advice from CO's on other matters.
There's also no doubt that CO's don't always choose to enforce the letter of the hunter orange regulation in all circumstances. Its no different than the OPP who generally choose not to ticket drivers doing 110 km/hr in a 100 km/hr zone.
The article does a service to Ontario hunters IMO.
So why would one not want to wear as much orange a possible while upland hunting? Sure its not the law but isn't just wiser to be as visible as possible. Do we really need another law stating that? Had occasion at Hullet where passed guys in full camo not even an orange cap hunting pheasant. Can honestly say it was hard to see them through the fence rows at distance. Just makes sense to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Quote:
Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers
Why leave your house? Why not wear orange while archery hunting? Why not wear orange while walking down the street?
I do not wear my full blaze orange hunting gear because it is freaking hot in Oct when I am hunting upland birds, I take precautions but there are never any certainties. If you are archery hunting in full camo for deer during a closed season you may still get shot. Heck, you can get shot by your neighbour when sitting in your living room.
The issue was that the magazine put out an article stating the law and it is not correct based on the wording of the law. The orange requirement shown in the magazine article and the write up about it does not match the wording of the law and that is where the problem is.
Wear as much hunter orange as you want, it is up to you how much you want to wear, just make sure it is at least 400 sq in and visible from all sides and wear a blaze orange hat, that is all that is required.
I wear my orange 95% of the time I have a vest so I can always put it on. If your rabbit hunting you won't see the person next to you if he is more then 20 meters.
"But, Your Honour!!!... I was doing what some guy who calls himself "Fox" on the Ontario Out of Doors internet forum said to do!!!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
The most common mistake people make with the law is to believe they can read an act and know the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
something wrong with that concept: if the average person cannot read and understand a law, they cannot follow it; hence, having such law serves no purpose to the general publicQuote:
Originally Posted by welsh
I'm not debating that this is the way lawyers like to see it and justify their ridiculous fees.
I didn't say you can't read and understand a law; I said it is a mistake to read an act and believe you understand the law. The law and the act are not the same thing.
That's because the act contains only the words, but the law is made of the words and their interpretation. Here, you've got an article telling you what the interpretation is. And people are saying it's wrong, based in their reading of the words. The mistake is substituting your own interpretation for the interpretations that count, which are the ones laying and deciding the charge.
Leo's with any amount of experience, also take into consideration past court decisions and interpretations. With experience, they learn how to read and interpret various sections of the Acts, taking into consideration other sections, regulations or definitions in that Act. One section may define an offence, whereas another section may identify certain conditions that render that particular section not applicable.
clear as mud....hahaQuote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Well. The article did clear things up......in a round about way. So I'm glad he wrote it.
Don.
400 sq inches above the waist, written out right there, all you have to do is have that and have it visible from all sides. You must also have a hat. It even states that a hunters vest generally meets this requirement. This is what is written in the regulations, I am not writing anything about what the law is, I am stating the regulations.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninepointer
Go out and measure your vest and make sure you can see orange from all sides, you do not need to be able to see 400 square inches, you just need to see orange from all sides.
If you meet the requirements of the law then any charges are total BS and would be put in place without just cause.
This reminds me of the BS of someone saying they were charged for not having proper hunter orange while on the ATV. You cannot hunt on an ATV so how can you be charged for not having proper hunter orange (helmet) while on the ATV.
Maybe the sales of orange backpacks are down and the OFAH has one coming up for sale in the next catalog.
Pretty good summary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Finally! Here's a poster that gets it. It's a lot of angst and confusion for an item most of us may need to wear only one or two weeks out of the entire season,at least,in southern Ontario except if you're a licensed Black Bear hunter,it must be worn (by regulation) every time you go out until the Bear season ends.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Heres a wrinkle for you Fox.....where does it say in any regulation that you can't "hunt" (read the definition of hunting") from a bike ! What would be the difference in walking a trail, looking for game, or riding the same trail, looking for game, standing at a run, or sitting on your bike watching the run ? This is exactly why interpretation is best left to the authorities ! Some have in fact been charged as you posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
You could very well be right. Tell it to the judge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Myself, given the choice I'll play the odds and follow the advice of a published article that cites David Critchlow, Provincial Enforcement Specialist, as a source.
There are posters in this thread who have first-hand experience in the application and interpretation of law. We should heed their advice.
Page 30 of the regulations summaryQuote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
"Use of Vehicles, Boats or Aircraft (see Definitions, page 86) Aircraft, including drones and balloons, may not be used while hunting. Snowmobiles, vehicles or boats may not be used for chasing, pursuing, harassing, capturing, injuring or killing any wildlife.It is illegal to have a loaded firearm in or on, or discharge a firearm from, an aircraft, vehicle (including snowmobile and all-terrain vehicle) or motorboat or anything towed by the boat. An exception to this rule is that a person may obtain an authorization through the local ministry office if the person’s mobility is impaired and the person meets one of the following criteria:"
You can use the vehicle to get to your location, you cannot legally hunt with it and you cannot have a loaded gun on it. If you drive it to your stand you need to get off the bike and load it to legally load it. If you can hunt with your helmet on then you better have an orange helmet cover but an orange helmet cover is not required to ride your atv during an open season, even if you are going to your hunting spot. This would be the same as having to wear your hunter orange to drive your car during an open season, you are not hunting you do not need hunter orange.
I use full face helmets, try getting an anchor point properly with a full face, it is not going to happen, I cannot shoot properly with a helmet on, I take my bucket off, set it on the bike, then grab the gun, move away from the bike and load up ready to hunt.
If they have been charged for hunting without hunter orange hat on when riding the atv then that CO needs to be chewed out, this seems to me like trying to fill a quota, who is going to go fight it.
The regulations summary is just a summary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Since the idea of interpretation seems foreign to so many people, let's consider what the regs summary actually says: "visible from all sides." What does "visible from all sides" mean? Ho much orange must be visible to meet this requirement? One square inch? One half square inch? Someone here will swear up and down that the literal interpretation is the law, that any amount of orange being visible meets the letter of the law and is therefore legal. Good luck with that in court....
A CO in the field is going to use some discretion ... if you have a backpack covering part of your vest but there's still a lot of orange visible across your shoulders, he could let this pass. If the backpack substantially covers your back so that little orange is seen, he may decide otherwise.
Wait for a LEO to ask to see your guns and take them away for "illegal storage" with no idea of what legal storage is. LEOs can charge someone without it being something they can legally do.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninepointer
Remember trust everything in magazines and on the internet, if they say it is true it must be.
I personally will go by what is in the regulations and fight like hell if I am every charged for abiding by the rules put in place and in writing.
Quote:
24. (1) A person shallnot use a vehicle for the purpose of killing, injuring, capturing, harassing,pursuing or chasing wildlife.
“hunting” includes,
(a) lying in wait for, searching for, beingon the trail of, pursuing, chasing or shooting at wildlife, whether or not thewildlife 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, beingon the trail of or pursuing wildlife for a purpose other than attempting tokill, injure, capture or harass it, unless the wildlife is killed, injured,captured or harassed as a result,
and “hunt” and “hunter” have correspondingmeanings; (“chasse”, “chasser”, “chasseur”)
“vehicle” means any kind of vehicle that isdriven, propelled or drawn on land or ice by any kind of power, includingmuscular power, and includes the rolling stock of a railway; (“véhicule”)
Above is the law that appears to apply from the FWCA. My interpretation based on the definition of "hunt" would be that if you are scouting and the intention is to not kill an animal "while" scouting" you'd be alright. You can't "hunt" from a vehicle so you shouldn't have to wear hunter orange. I suppose if you had a loaded firearm on the vehicle while driving it, (which would be illegal) you could be deemed to be hunting at the time and be required to wear hunter orange depending on the seasons and possibly charged for both.
I heard of people charged for not having orange on while driving in their trucks which I think would be an unfair charge to be laid.
You are hung up on the Summary, it means squat ! Where in the actual legislation does it say I can't "hunt" from a vehicle. If I'm cruising logging roads looking for a moose in a cutover, I'm hunting, given the definition of "hunting".....guys "road hunt" all the time ! I can't shoot from or have a loaded firearm in or on a vehicle. I can't use a vehicle to chase, kill or harass, but I sure can "hunt" from a vehicle...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Dont forget the presumption in Sec 109.....Again, more than one Section, definition and presumption is considered by the LEO, in making the decision to charge or not.
If you are caught with a loaded firearm in or on a vehicle, Hunter orange regulations would be the least of your worries !Quote:
Originally Posted by redd foxx
Has anyone ever heard of someone being convicted of not wearing enough Hunter Orange ???
With such loose interpretations of interpretations, I'm sure any dime store lawyer would have the charges thrown out.
I've heard of convictions for no orange or no orange hats.
I've heard of warnings for camo orange, but no ticket.
But if you have a sold orange vest and solid orange hat of some sort, the COs seem to acknowledge your attempt at compliance and leave it at that...
In the end it all comes down to the C.O. Some of them actually like there jobs and are fair and respected! Some of them not so much!!!
Case in point.
A group of coyote hunters I know had found a coyote track and proceeded to put their start dogs on it. One of their sons ,14 years old wanted to put the dogs on the track. So he walked the 2 dogs a short way into the woods, released them, waited a bit until they were gone ,then returned to the road.
A C.O. drives up as the young lad exits the woods with the dog leash over his shoulders. C.O then checks all their licences. The 14 year old hasn't gotten his license yet,waiting until he is 15.
Guess what happens next? C.O. Charges him for hunting without a license because he put the dogs on the track!!
Technically,I guess you could say he did attempt to hunt or chase or pursue game. But in my eyes it was a bs charge and totally unnecessary. Hence the discretion and interpretation of so said laws being discussed here.
Yes, technically he was participating in the hunt. Unlawful...yes, a BS charge, quite likely ! A stern education lecture would likely sufficed, but we were not there. Someone may have flunked the attitude test !
This is the sort of crap we get into when we start over-interpretation of the fwca. That people accompanying hunters and assisting marginally in the hunt are considered to be hunting is something relatively new, and its total BS. If you're not carrying a gun/bow, you shouldn't need a license. I think the MNRF has seen some of the folly in this BS and now dog handlers for tracking wounded animals are now exempt.Quote:
Originally Posted by bushman
The attitude test often affecting the officers reaction
Same here. Insufficient orange strikes me as a possible "pile on" charge in a situation where the CO has laid other more serious charges.Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
Four years ago I was checked by a friendly CO who recommended that I buy myself a new orange vest due to its colour. The vest I was wearing was old but not faded at all. However, it was a redder type of blaze orange which in the CO's opinion did not meet Ontario's hunter orange standard. He explained how proper hunter orange will still stand out in dim light (I was coming out of the bush, gun encased, after legal time), whereas at first he thought I was not wearing any vest at all because he could not see any orange while he watched me through his binoculars (yes, occasionally there is a CO in the bushes with binoculars).
Was that individual CO's opinion so correct that it would stand up to a challenge in court? I dunno and I don't care. I bought myself a new vest and it was no big hardship for me.
My point exactly: Legal opinions by Fox.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
That would, logically, be the way a judge would look at it too....Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
Gee, I thought if it was in colour it had to be true. Just like at the Check Out in the grocery store. I know that the tabloids that are black and white are all lies. The colour ones have to be true... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ninepointer
Not sure Rick, wasn't there but I don't think they were rude. Anyone of the 3 adults could have taken the dogs in but way more thrilling for a kid to do so, and at least he wasn't sitting at home in front of a TV or play station!!Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
A few years ago moose hunting in 18b, a C.O. came right into our cottage,all business and not that friendly!! After checking all of our moose licenses, which I don't believe we " had" to show him sitting in camp, he switched gears.
All legal, all licenses in order, he became very friendly and was actually cordial and friendly. Then he starts trying to pump us for information on the coming and going of a couple of trucks, colour, time of day etcetera, etcetera. Needless to say, the old adage came into play. Heard nothing, saw nothing and know less.
From Hitler to Mr Rogers in 10 minutes isn't the way to ascertain information, at least not from me!!
Mos hunting vests meet the requirements of colour and 40# Sq inches. I have had packs over my vest and neither the CO's or the OPP had any issues when they wer checking our licenses.
I'm surprised a CO would even lay a charge against a "youthful offender". The worst that could happen is attending Family Court and we all know how that would go,don't we?Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
The FWCA makes it quite clear when and how blaze orange must be worn. As long as it's being worn as prescribed,the FWCA has been satisfied....full stop. Nowhere does it say it's illegal to use a back pack. Nowhere does it say the back pack must be blaze orange. If some CO wants to lay a BS charge like that or for not wearing a blaze orange helmet or some such idiotic nonsense just to "pad their stats",they should expect to go to Court. They would deserve to have their credibility thoroughly impeached and believe me,that goes a lot further as an example for every other CO that might be prone to silliness than any reaming given by a Crown counsel or senior supervisor.Quote:
Originally Posted by arclight
I think there have been lots of convictions for people charged with the hunter orange section. Most would have paid out of court rather than fight it I'm sure.
Yes but they would have been for NOT wearing Orange or the illegal kind......have you every heard of someone getting a fine for not wearing enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by redd foxx
No, now that you mention it.