Regs test

Year after year around this site the same hypothetical situations arise and many debates are started. Lots of folks offer their opinions on what a CO may or may not do in these situations. Here's a little test...

Keep in mind that it's mostly just for fun but this was a real scenario with a real outcome involving two guys that I know very well.

This all took place about 15 years ago. The two guys went duck hunting one morning on a pond on private land in WMU 60. When they were finished hunting ducks they packed up all their duck gear and put it in the box of the truck. They cleaned the only one they got (leaving a wing attached) and put it in the box as well. Also keep in mind they used steel shot while duck hunting.

A little bit later, they proceeded to sight in a .30-30 for the upcoming deer season on the same property. When they were finished they packed up all the gear pertaining to a rifle sight-in, cased the rifle and put everything in the box of the truck.

As it turns out, moose season was open in WMU 60. The two guys decided to drive across a local forest access road through crown land on the way home. They were curious to see if the locals had any moose down. The guys did not have moose licences.

Because they were driving down a bush road (access road), one fellow kept his 12 gauge in the front seat and an open box of #6 lead in the console in case they saw any grouse. They didn't have any blaze orange with them either.

About half way across this access road, the two guys were stopped by a pair of CO's in a truck.

Can anyone tell me what the outcome was? What charges were laid?

Again, mostly for fun, but I'm curious about the interpretations.

I don't see how there would be any problem with the duck. They may have run into an issue of having a shotgun uncased in the vehicle with them. It all depends on whether the COs determined the access road to be a road. Also not having orange might have been a concern.

No charges !

I don't see any charges.

Nope,me neither.

Driving down a road with an uncased unloaded firearm during daylight is not illegal and not "hunting" by my interpretation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

Driving down a road with an uncased unloaded firearm during daylight is not illegal and not "hunting" by my interpretation.

---

You're right. The only problem would be if the firearm was loaded.
from: http://www.ohep.net/Info.cfm?ID=5

Preventable Hunting Violations

Most hunters understand and follow Ontario's Hunting Regulations, but some common mistakes are made by hunters every year that can result in a violation. The Ministry of Natural Resources wants to help hunters avoid mistakes that may, inadvertently, put them in violation of the law.
Ontario's Most Common and Preventable Hunting Violations Are:

1. Loaded Firearm in Vehicle or Motorboat: It is illegal to possess a loaded firearm in or on a vehicle or motorboat. This is unsafe and has resulted in accidents, including fatalities.
   
   
2. Unencased Firearms: You must unload and encase firearms in your possession during the period from a half hour after sunset to a half hour before sunrise. The only exception is for licensed night raccoon hunters.
   
   
3. Shooting from a Public Road: It is illegal to shoot from, down or across a public road while hunting.
   
   
4. Possession of a Loaded Firearm on a Roadway: In most of southern Ontario (south of the French and Matttawa Rivers) it is generally unlawful to have a firearm that is loaded unless the hunter is either across the fence line where one exists, or at least 8 metres from the traveled portion of the roadway where there are no fences.
   
   
5. Failure to Wear Fluorescent Orange: In Ontario during the gun season for deer and moose, all hunters must visibly wear both afluorescent orange vest/coat and hat. During open season for bear, all bear hunters must wear fluorescent orange except while in a tree stand. Camouflage hunter orange patterns are not allowed. (This regulation does not apply to waterfowl hunters.)
   
   
6. Game Sealing Violations: These violations range from forgetting to notch the game seal or improperly applying the seal when harvesting a big game animal, to transferring or misusing game seals. Hunters are reminded that detailed instructions are printed on each big game seal and in this Summary.
   
   
7. Carrying Another Person's Game Seal: While hunting, a person may not possess another person's game seal. This applies to moose, deer, bear and wild turkey game seals.
   
   
8. Failure to Retain Evidence of Gender on Moose: When there are gender restrictions on the harvest of game, the sex organs must be transported attached to the carcass. This is required for all adult moose harvested in Ontario.
   
   
9. Hunting in the Wrong Area: For example, a licence validation tag is only valid in a specific Wildlife Management Unit and cannot be legally used in another area.
   
   
10. Trespassing: Hunters must have permission to enter private land, even if the intent is just to cross the private land to reach public land. Private property does not necessarily have to be posted to deny access. Every year, trespassing results in more and more property being posted and no longer available to hunters.
    
    
11. Failure to Carry Licence on Person: Hunters must carry the licence, any validation tag and any game seals with them while hunting. Failure to do so often results in wasted time for the Conservation Officer, a spoiled hunt for the hunter and can result in fines and/or seized equipment.
    
    
12. Abandonment of Game: It is illegal to abandon game or allow it to spoil.
    
    

Possession of lead shot while duck hunting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TPM

Possession of lead shot while duck hunting.

---

Actually not illegal. You can carry lead as long as you don't use it on waterfowl. There was an article in the OOD magazine that went over the interpretation as per Mr. Critchlow.

What they were charged with and what they could be charged with would depend on the CO and what he decided that day.

They are doing nothing wrong!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B Wilson

What they were charged with and what they could be charged with would depend on the CO and what he decided that day.

---

Having a bad day isn't an excuse to lay "iffy" charges. Actually,it'll get his/her arse kicked. Court officers flip out when that happens. Nobody likes to be made a fool of,especially,them.

Illegal moose hunting....because the CO 15 years ago thought.................having a high powered centre fire rifle in your vehicle....driving around in an area that has moose/moose hunters you must be poaching.

This is interesting so far! I'll wait until tomorrow afternoon or so to post the actual outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fratri

Illegal moose hunting....because the CO 15 years ago thought.................having a high powered centre fire rifle in your vehicle....driving around in an area that has moose/moose hunters you must be poaching.

---

X2 you beat me to it fratri

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Having a bad day isn't an excuse to lay "iffy" charges. Actually,it'll get his/her arse kicked. Court officers flip out when that happens. Nobody likes to be made a fool of,especially,them.

---

Not suggesting that the CO would lay charges for things the lads may not have been doing, but the CO may have only given a warning for something instead of laying a charge.

I have received warnings to slow down before, when there was no doubt I was well over the speed limit.

No violations. No charges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B Wilson

What they were charged with and what they could be charged with would depend on the CO and what he decided that day.

---

Best answer, because we don't have all the facts. We don't know the facts from the CO's point of view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

Actually not illegal. You can carry lead as long as you don't use it on waterfowl. There was an article in the OOD magazine that went over the interpretation as per Mr. Critchlow.

---

I'd love to read his interpretation. Right from the EC website:

"Since September 1, 1999, the possession or use of lead shot while hunting most migratory game birds has been banned in all areas in Canada."

I don't think they were doing anything wrong until such time as they stepped out of the vehicle and shot a bird however I'll hazard a guess that they were charged with not wearing proper hunter orange (not that they should have been).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMatthews

I don't see how there would be any problem with the duck. They may have run into an issue of having a shotgun uncased in the vehicle with them. It all depends on whether the COs determined the access road to be a road. Also not having orange might have been a concern.

---

Doesn't have to be in a case.

Charged and convicted are entirely different . I've seen and heard of a lot of bogus charges being laid over the years !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TPM

I'd love to read his interpretation. Right from the EC website:

"Since September 1, 1999, the possession or use of lead shot while hunting most migratory game birds has been banned in all areas in Canada."

---

This is the email I carry with me
#1 - You may possess lead shot while hunting migratory birds as long as you are not using it to hunt migratory birds. The actual wording from the Migratory Birds Regulations is:

Subject to subsection (2), no person shall possess, for the purpose of hunting a migratorygame bird, except a woodcock, band-tailed pigeon or mourning dove, shot other than non-toxic shot;

If you wish to stash lead shot while hunting migratory birds, you should ensure that it is stored legally.

# 2 - In Ontario, your shotgun must be plugged or altered so that it cannot hold more than three shells in the magazine and chamber combined at all times while hunting. This does not apply when using the shotgun for a purpose other than hunting, e.g.target shooting.

I trust this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

David Critchlow

David Critchlow | Provincial Enforcement Specialist | Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry | 1^st Floor North | 300 Water Street | Peterborough, ON | K9J 8M5

No hunter orange with them if they were actually "hunting" grouse?

And also, can they possess a centrefire rifle there, if they don't have a moose licence??

Most of it would come down to if they were actually considered "hunting" while driving in the vehicle when they were stopped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redd foxx

I don't think they were doing anything wrong until such time as they stepped out of the vehicle and shot a bird however I'll hazard a guess that they were charged with not wearing proper hunter orange (not that they should have been).

---

Thats entirely possible, given the hunting definition, and depending on how they answered the COs question.."are you hunting ?". I have heard of this charge being laid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brent

No hunter orange with them if they were actually "hunting" grouse?

And also, can they possess a centrefire rifle there, if they don't have a moose licence??

Most of it would come down to if they were actually considered "hunting" while driving in the vehicle when they were stopped.

---

The rifle was in a case, in the truck box. Would be no different than driving to camp before moose or deer season with your encased rifle and hunting chickens on the way in with a .410.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

The rifle was in a case, in the truck box. Would be no different than driving to camp before moose or deer season with your encased rifle and hunting chickens on the way in with a .410.

---

It says they have no moose licence. Page 87 of the regs under small game section. 400 foot pound restriction IF they are small game hunting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

This is the email I carry with me
#1 - You may possess lead shot while hunting migratory birds as long as you are not using it to hunt migratory birds. The actual wording from the Migratory Birds Regulations is:

Subject to subsection (2), no person shall possess, for the purpose of hunting a migratorygame bird, except a woodcock, band-tailed pigeon or mourning dove, shot other than non-toxic shot;

If you wish to stash lead shot while hunting migratory birds, you should ensure that it is stored legally.

# 2 - In Ontario, your shotgun must be plugged or altered so that it cannot hold more than three shells in the magazine and chamber combined at all times while hunting. This does not apply when using the shotgun for a purpose other than hunting, e.g.target shooting.

I trust this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

David Critchlow

David Critchlow | Provincial Enforcement Specialist | Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry | 1^st Floor North | 300 Water Street | Peterborough, ON | K9J 8M5

---

Again, this is only one interpretation. You likely can be charged, simply because you were in possession of lead shot. Most offences under the FWCA require the charged person to prove he/she wasn't in violation. The only interpretation that really matters is the JP,s!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brent

It says they have no moose licence. Page 87 of the regs under small game section. 400 foot pound restriction IF they are small game hunting.

---

They were not carrying or using the rifle. If it was uncased in the cab, then they are toast !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

They were not carrying or using the rifle. If it was uncased in the cab, then they are toast !

---

The reg says "possess".........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Charged and convicted are entirely different . I've seen and heard of a lot of bogus charges being laid over the years !

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Again, this is only one interpretation. You likely can be charged, simply because you were in possession of lead shot. Most offences under the FWCA require the charged person to prove he/she wasn't in violation. The only interpretation that really matters is the JP,s!

---

Would be hard for a CO to lay a charge when faced with the response given. In any case would make for a good expert witness. I rather take my advice from a Provincial Enforcement Specialist than some guy on the internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

Would be hard for a CO to lay a charge when faced with the response given. In any case would make for a good expert witness. I rather take my advice from a Provincial Enforcement Specialist than some guy on the internet.

---

Absolutely ! However, his interpretation is still his interpretation ! It has no bearing on the interpretations of individual CO's. They are not governed by his interpretation of the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brent

The reg says "possess".........

---

Yea, I just checked on that one. I guess a charge could be laid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Again, this is only one interpretation. You likely can be charged, simply because you were in possession of lead shot. Most offences under the FWCA require the charged person to prove he/she wasn't in violation. The only interpretation that really matters is the JP,s!

---

I'd still be nervous carrying lead. " For the purpose of" can be a big gray area. Intent can only be defined by a CO's interpretation of the circumstances and I wouldn't want to have to do any explaining to him or a judge.

Lead shot in possession for waterfowl.
Hunting moose without a license.
Hunting big game without blaze orange.

...if they ran into one of the Pembroke COs.

Lead shot
12 gauge uncassed but not concealed.

Why would it have to be concealed ?

Hmmm. I don't believe they were breaking any laws and I don't think they intended too but I could see an overzealous CO laying a charge for the 30-30. At the same time I hope that charge would be dismissed in court as I don't believe you can be convicted for something A LEO thinks you MAY do.
You cant be charged for robbing a bank because you have a ski mask in your trunk while parked in a bank parking lot any more than being charged for POACHING moose cause you have a 30-30 stored in the truck box. Interested to see how this plays out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Absolutely ! However, his interpretation is still his interpretation ! It has no bearing on the interpretations of individual CO's. They are not governed by his interpretation of the law.

---

True however as a Judge relies on precedent in making a ruling would imagine a CO would consider the interpretation of colleague especially if he may have to face him in court. Situations like this is where the interpretation may play out. The possession of lead is obviously not for migratory birds if however you where in the middle of a goose spread in a corn field may have a harder argument to prove.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Yea, I just checked on that one. I guess a charge could be laid.

---

Slow down, does this mean one could get charged for having a rifle (locked, encased, out of sight, etc.) in the car while driving through an area with open season for which you don't have a licence/tag for?
I guess if one drives a dead-end logging trail, it's difficult to say they are on the way home, but there could be other legit reasons to go there that have nothing to do with hunting moose (e.g. pulling someone out of the ditch, target shooting, etc.).

Or going to the shooting club next week with a 12 gauge and sabots? The control hunt is on in the area but I have no controlled hunt tag ???

One that i see is they had no hunter orange as it is required when there is an open season for big game.

"Under this regulation, all licenced hunters, including bow hunters and falconers hunting during a gun season for deer, elk, or moose are required to wear hunter orange. This requirement does not apply to persons who are hunting migratory game birds except woodcock."

"Where there is a gun season for moose, elk, or deer concurrent with an open bear season, then the only persons exempted from wearing hunter orange are migratory game bird hunters as indicated above"

After carefully re-reading the OP,the ONLY charge that could be laid is for not wearing blaze orange. The regs clearly state that during a gun hunt for Moose,Deer,Elk or Black Bear,ALL hunters must wear.....except for waterfowl etc. Because the shotgun is open and the front seat with ammo close by,R&PG exists to believe that hunting is taking place,therefore,blaze would be required. The OP states that the shot is #6 which falls within the legal requirement of shot size,therefore,no offense is committed. If,upon inspection of the truck box,they found that the duck meat had or would spoil,there may be an issue with that depending on how it was stored. It remains to be seen if the meat had actually spoiled. Having their rifles in cases and stored in the truck box is not an offense,therefore,licenses are NOT required and a charge for such can't be laid in that instance,either. Because the hunters aren't actively hunting waterfowl at the time and their gear is stored,no charge can be laid for possession of lead shot while hunting migratory birds because they weren't,quite clearly,hunting waterfowl.

No blaze is the only offence being committed.

Rifle in truck, not illegal.

Shotgun in cab, unloaded not illegal.

Possession of lead shot not illegal. The CO would likely check the duck to see what was used. Or ask if they in fact had steel shot as well.

[QUOTE=Bluebulldog;940857]No blaze is the only offence being committed.

Rifle in truck, not illegal.

Shotgun in cab, unloaded not illegal.


You are probably correct but unless they got out of the truck to hunt / shoot they are not hunting but perhaps transporting a shotgun not incased and that is perfectly legal . A bit of a stretch perhaps considering they told the CO they were looking for grouse but unless they got out of the truck with the shotgun ????

[QUOTE=Hunter John;940859]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebulldog

No blaze is the only offence being committed.

Rifle in truck, not illegal.

Shotgun in cab, unloaded not illegal.


You are probably correct but unless they got out of the truck to hunt / shoot they are not hunting but perhaps transporting a shotgun not incased and that is perfectly legal . A bit of a stretch perhaps considering they told the CO they were looking for grouse but unless they got out of the truck with the shotgun ????

---

Since searching for game falls under the definition of hunting driving the road looking for grouse falls under hunting hence the need for the orange. Definition of hunting is more than pulling the trigger.

And that's why I tend to agree with Blue BD. The 2 admitted what they were doing likely not realizing they were in violation of the orange requirement . While honesty is the best policy IMO if they said they were just going home could / would the charge still stick?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hunter John

And that's why I tend to agree with Blue BD. The 2 admitted what they were doing likely not realizing they were in violation of the orange requirement . While honesty is the best policy IMO if they said they were just going home could / would the charge still stick?

---

Probably would be okay. The next question would be were they wearing their seat belts? If it was on may support their claim "just on the way home" if it was off one might dig a little deeper into their actions or another charge maybe in order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waftrudnir

Slow down, does this mean one could get charged for having a rifle (locked, encased, out of sight, etc.) in the car while driving through an area with open season for which you don't have a licence/tag for?
I guess if one drives a dead-end logging trail, it's difficult to say they are on the way home, but there could be other legit reasons to go there that have nothing to do with hunting moose (e.g. pulling someone out of the ditch, target shooting, etc.).

---

This is the Section they would rely on with respect to the rifle.....note the word "possess"...and they were hunting small game, not just passing through or going home.



77. (1) A person hunting small game, when in an area during an open season in the area for a species of big game, shall not possess or use,
(a) a rifle of greater muzzle energy than 400 foot-pounds; or
(b) shells loaded with ball or shot larger than number two shot. O. Reg. 49/11, s. 18.
(2) Despite clause (1) (b), a holder of a small game licence, when in an area during an open season in the area for a species of big game, may possess and use,
(a) in the case of shot made of steel, shot that is not larger than triple BBB steel shot; or
(b) in the case of shot made of bismuth, shot that is not larger than double BB bismuth shot. O. Reg. 665/98, s. 77 (2).
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a holder of a small game licence hunting in that part of Ontario lying south of the French and Mattawa rivers during an open season for deer that is restricted to the use of bows. O. Reg. 665/98, s. 77 (3).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

This is the Section they would rely on with respect to the rifle.....note the word "possess"...



77. (1) A person hunting small game, when in an area during an open season in the area for a species of big game, shall not possess or use,
(a) a rifle of greater muzzle energy than 400 foot-pounds; or
(b) shells loaded with ball or shot larger than number two shot. O. Reg. 49/11, s. 18.
(2) Despite clause (1) (b), a holder of a small game licence, when in an area during an open season in the area for a species of big game, may possess and use,
(a) in the case of shot made of steel, shot that is not larger than triple BBB steel shot; or
(b) in the case of shot made of bismuth, shot that is not larger than double BB bismuth shot. O. Reg. 665/98, s. 77 (2).
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a holder of a small game licence hunting in that part of Ontario lying south of the French and Mattawa rivers during an open season for deer that is restricted to the use of bows. O. Reg. 665/98, s. 77 (3).

---

It would depend on the definition of the word "possess" and the context in which it's used. Case law precedent has established it to mean "on one's person" at the time. Please don't ask me for specifics,I can only go from personal knowledge. If someone would like to research it,be my guest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

After carefully re-reading the OP,the ONLY charge that could be laid is for not wearing blaze orange. The regs clearly state that during a gun hunt for Moose,Deer,Elk or Black Bear,ALL hunters must wear.....except for waterfowl etc. Because the shotgun is open and the front seat with ammo close by,R&PG exists to believe that hunting is taking place,therefore,blaze would be required. The OP states that the shot is #6 which falls within the legal requirement of shot size,therefore,no offense is committed. If,upon inspection of the truck box,they found that the duck meat had or would spoil,there may be an issue with that depending on how it was stored. It remains to be seen if the meat had actually spoiled. Having their rifles in cases and stored in the truck box is not an offense,therefore,licenses are NOT required and a charge for such can't be laid in that instance,either. Because the hunters aren't actively hunting waterfowl at the time and their gear is stored,no charge can be laid for possession of lead shot while hunting migratory birds because they weren't,quite clearly,hunting waterfowl.

---

There is or was no charge for allowing migratory birds to spoil. They were going to address that in changes to the MBCA...I don't know if that's been done. Surprisingly, waterfowl are not "game" or "game birds" as defined in the FWCA..likely because they are Federally regulated .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

It would depend on the definition of the word "possess" and the context in which it's used. Case law precedent has established it to mean "on one's person" at the time. Please don't ask me for specifics,I can only go from personal knowledge. If someone would like to research it,be my guest.

---

Not really. One only needs to have control over the thing in question. For instance, a charge of possession of weed when it was hidden in your attic is proper. There's no doubt they would have control over the rifle...

Does anyone remember exactly when hunter orange became a legal requirement in Ontario? This case may have been closer to the late 90's. I'm having a hard time finding anything with my google-fu.

Been hunting since 87 and always remember orange being mandatory during big game seasons.

Hunters Orange existed since the 1970's I believe at least in NB and NS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GW11

Does anyone remember exactly when hunter orange became a legal requirement in Ontario? This case may have been closer to the late 90's. I'm having a hard time finding anything with my google-fu.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GW11

Does anyone remember exactly when hunter orange became a legal requirement in Ontario? This case may have been closer to the late 90's. I'm having a hard time finding anything with my google-fu.

---

It wasn't required in 1975. I had the old red and black wool coat and pants then. I looked at the old Game and Fish Act, 1990, and there is no reference to hunter orange. Other than that, the Game And Fish act was repealed in 1999.

So Hey GW11, how did the story end?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

This is the Section they would rely on with respect to the rifle.....note the word "possess"...and they were hunting small game, not just passing through or going home.



77. (1) A person hunting small game, when in an area during an open season in the area for a species of big game, shall not possess or use,
(a) a rifle of greater muzzle energy than 400 foot-pounds; or
(b) shells loaded with ball or shot larger than number two shot. O. Reg. 49/11, s. 18.
(2) Despite clause (1) (b), a holder of a small game licence, when in an area during an open season in the area for a species of big game, may possess and use,
(a) in the case of shot made of steel, shot that is not larger than triple BBB steel shot; or
(b) in the case of shot made of bismuth, shot that is not larger than double BB bismuth shot. O. Reg. 665/98, s. 77 (2).
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a holder of a small game licence hunting in that part of Ontario lying south of the French and Mattawa rivers during an open season for deer that is restricted to the use of bows. O. Reg. 665/98, s. 77 (3).

---

Thanks for citing; I guess there is this little word that could you get in trouble - for no good reason IMHO.
I'll add this one to my list of things that shouldn't be, but are (or at least potentially) a reason to get fined for. Talk about ticketing people who would try to do everything right. Well, with exception of the hunter orange in this case. And speaking of it, they should not even get charged for that as long as they are in the truck with an unloaded gun. Most likely the interview would have been set up to ensure they claimed they were hunting.
Regarding the part that driving around in that scenario could be considered hunting, everyone wearing orange or not should be charged, because you cannot see orange from all sides while you sit in a truck. Ridiculous for sure, just like a handful of the regs themself (too bad, most of it is actually pretty good)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waftrudnir

Thanks for citing; I guess there is this little word that could you get in trouble - for no good reason IMHO.
I'll add this one to my list of things that shouldn't be, but are (or at least potentially) a reason to get fined for. Talk about ticketing people who would try to do everything right. Well, with exception of the hunter orange in this case. And speaking of it, they should not even get charged for that as long as they are in the truck with an unloaded gun. Most likely the interview would have been set up to ensure they claimed they were hunting.
Regarding the part that driving around in that scenario could be considered hunting, everyone wearing orange or not should be charged, because you cannot see orange from all sides while you sit in a truck. Ridiculous for sure, just like a handful of the regs themself (too bad, most of it is actually pretty good)

---

For sure! Regarding the riding in a truck and not being able to see the hunter orange from all sides, it gets worse ! You can be sitting in a camo blind, as long as you are wearing the prescribed orange hat and jacket....with no offence ! Doesn't make much sense to me !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

True however as a Judge relies on precedent in making a ruling would imagine a CO would consider the interpretation of colleague especially if he may have to face him in court.

---

With respect to this thing re lead shot and waterfowl, reply of Critchlow in OOD: Critchlow is not just any CO. He works in the office that's responsible for providing interpretation to COs in the field. Also, any media response by anyone in the MNRF is passed through and approved by Queens Park. So you can take what was in OOD as MNRF policy.

If you were charged for lead shot in possession contrary to that guidance, you would have a solid defence in that you were following the guidance of a CO. I forget the legal term for that defence off the top of my head, but essentially if you can prove that you had guidance from a cop to do a thing (which you can here, because it is in writing), and that it would be reasonable to think that guidance was official (which it is here), this is a defence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

It would depend on the definition of the word "possess" and the context in which it's used. Case law precedent has established it to mean "on one's person" at the time.

---

Case law re what constitutes possession of a firearm while hunting, I would hope. Possession in general is much more complex and can exist even when the thing possessed is a thousand miles away.

For possession of a firearm for the purpose of hunting, I would think it would not be necessary to have it on your person. Riding an ATV with a gun in a case would surely constitute possession for that purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Not really. One only needs to have control over the thing in question.

---

Or even simply the intent and ability to regain control of it, i.e. constructive possession!

(One for those folks who think you can sell your gun to a buddy for a buck so you won't "possess" it anymore....)

As I said in my earlier post, we don't know the facts from the CO's point of view here. Such as, what did these guys say when stopped? Did they admit they were keeping an eye out for grouse, for example? That's a potential charge on blaze orange, right there.

I'm also interested in what the CO's used as R&PG to stop the truck,in the first place,seeing as how nothing was visible to make them think these guys were even hunters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waftrudnir

Regarding the part that driving around in that scenario could be considered hunting, everyone wearing orange or not should be charged, because you cannot see orange from all sides while you sit in a truck.

---

It's highly unlikely a court would convict on that. Remember, the letter of the law is not the law. The law is the court's interpretation of the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

I'm also interested in what the CO's used as R&PG to stop the truck,in the first place,seeing as how nothing was visible to make them think these guys were even hunters.

---

Won't take much. If they were driving slow enough down a trail to spot grouse would be enough to look into their activities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

The rifle was in a case, in the truck box. Would be no different than driving to camp before moose or deer season with your encased rifle and hunting chickens on the way in with a .410.

---

If the season is not open, not a problem. If the season is open, you better have a license.
Pembroke COs regularly nail people with this when they have a CF rifle with them and cruise back roads before deer season.
- No bear license.

OK, so here's how the situation played out. Many of you were right from the start. No charges were laid, but I think things could have gone differently if questions had of been answered differently.

A couple of clarifications first... This was probably closer to 20 years ago and the "two guys" were actually my good friend (soon to be my BIL) and me personally. I thought that the "no charges" would be more apparent if I was writing about myself, because most people are reluctant to write about their own mistakes. I won't lie, we were pretty stupid to have taken that route home without thinking it over a little first. My understanding of the regs at that time were pretty limited. Yes, I took the hunter safety course and passed all the tests with flying colours, but I was brought up in a big woods, private land family camp where the "law" was what the old-timers said it was and a "CO" was a mythical being only to be seen on crown land sometimes.

So, we were about halfway across this access road when I see a white truck come around the bend in front of us and they put on their flashers. I immediately pulled to the side and waited for the two CO's to approach the truck. I believe they were stopping anyone they came across on this access road to check licences, etc. Our seat belts were on, as was asked above, and although hunting some grouse had been in mind when we left the duck pond on the family land, the amount of traffic and hunters on this access road had quickly changed our mind about doing any hunting. We were, in truth, just passing through at this point. But, the gun was still on the front seat and the shell box was in plain view. Here's how the conversation went:

CO#1 - Leans in the now open window, eyes the shotgun on the seat and asks "So what are you boys up to?"

Me - "Just on our way back home, thought we would come this way to see if anyone had a moose on the ground"

CO#1 - "What were you doing before you came through here?"

Me - "Duck hunting on family property off XXXXX road a few kilometres back"

CO#2 - "You guys get any ducks?"

Me - "Yes, just one, it's in the back"

CO#1 - "How about you fellas step out of the truck and show us what you got"

So, at this point, at the peak of my nervousness of having run into a real CO, I go to step out of the truck and realize that I had my foot on the brake and the clutch the entire time. I lift my foot off both and the truck lurches forward and stalls.

CO#1 - "In a hurry to go somewhere?"

Me - "Haha... no... uh... I forgot that it was still in gear... sorry."

CO#2 - "This is the duck?"

Me - "Yep, ringneck, the only one we got all morning" (the day was cool, we weren't worried about it spoiling)

CO#1 - "Can I see your shell bags?"

Me - "Yes, right there, have a look"

CO#1 - "Am I going to find any lead in here?"

Me - "No, the only lead is up in the front, it stayed there while we were duck hunting as well"

CO#1 - "Can I see your licences please?"

We hand them over, my buddy also hands his firearms licence over along with his registration slips for his guns.

CO#2 - "OK, this is good, we don't care about that stuff" (hands back the firearms papers and licence)

CO#1 - "What firearms do you have with you anyway?"

Me - "I have the side x side 12 gauge you saw up front"

Buddy - "I have an 870 12 gauge in that case there, and a Winchester .30-30 in that case there"

Long...... long..... long.... pause in the conversation.

CO#1 - "Do you boys have moose licences?"

Me/Buddy - "No, but we aren't hunting moose, we're just driving home."

CO#1 - "But you're passing through an area where moose are present during an open season for moose with a high-powered rifle in your possession without a moose licence."

Me - "Sorry, I didn't realize that we were doing anything wrong. We just brought the rifle up to sight in after duck hunting. Deer season starts in two weeks so we were just getting it ready. There's the box and target we were shooting, there's the empty shell casings to go along with it."

At this point it became very apparent that CO#1 (older fellow) wanted to find something. He was still rifling through everything in the back of the truck. CO#2 (younger fellow) could tell that we weren't intending to break any laws, just perhaps not being very careful about attracting unwanted attention.

CO#2 - "It's all good 'Bob' (not sure now what his name was), they're just on their way home, maybe just could have picked a different route is all"

CO#1 Reluctantly, after finishing his inspection - "OK boys, we believe you're doing what you say you're doing. Be more careful next time about how things might look to us when you get stopped"

That was that. Away we went, a little more aware and a little humbled. I truly think the way we answered the questions was the reason we weren't fined. If we'd said we were grouse hunting, maybe we would have been fined for not wearing blaze. Amazingly enough, he never even mentioned the shotgun or shells in the front seat, even though he knew full well they were there. The rifle in the back of the truck, although it looked bad, clearly was not there for poaching moose. We had the target, casings, etc., to support our story. There was no issue with the duck or our duck gear. That was my first encounter with a CO but not the last, and they didn't all go as well. There's always a chance you will run into the wrong guy on the wrong day and you'll go home with a ticket in your pocket no matter how hard you tried to be in compliance. Believe me on that one, I'd be happy to explain it to anyone through PM.

I guess the point of this thread was to point out that although there might be a dozen different directions that an encounter with a CO could go, the attitude/honesty of the hunter, the mood of the CO, the CO's individual interpretation of the law and the circumstances of the day will dictate the outcome. The regs are grey in many places. Most of the time we ourselves can't even agree on what certain things mean and we're expected to know and follow these rules.

My feelings on the matter are (and have been for a long time), use common sense, follow the regs as well as you can based on your interpretation, be prepared to answer questions and explain yourself. If that's not enough to get you by, well, you probably weren't going to win anyway.

Thanks for all the responses to the thread, it's been a fun and interesting read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werner.reiche

If the season is not open, not a problem. If the season is open, you better have a license.
Pembroke COs regularly nail people with this when they have a CF rifle with them and cruise back roads before deer season.
- No bear license.

---

Yea, I found and posted the authority previously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werner.reiche

If the season is not open, not a problem. If the season is open, you better have a license.
Pembroke COs regularly nail people with this when they have a CF rifle with them and cruise back roads before deer season.
- No bear license.

---

Werner, are you suggesting that I need to buy a bear license to go from mink lake over to the Eganville sportsman club to shoot my centre fire riffles? Would they also charge me with hunting with a restricted firearm because I also have my pistol in the truck?

I knew Fern could be a real stickler, but that's ridiculous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GW11

Thanks for all the responses to the thread, it's been a fun and interesting read.

---

Thanks for starting it! Nice to have a real-world example instead of our usual debates over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GW11

CO#1 Reluctantly, after finishing his inspection - "OK boys, we believe you're doing what you say you're doing. Be more careful next time about how things might look to us when you get stopped"

That was that. Away we went, a little more aware and a little humbled. I truly think the way we answered the questions was the reason we weren't fined.
My feelings on the matter are (and have been for a long time), use common sense, follow the regs as well as you can based on your interpretation, be prepared to answer questions and explain yourself. If that's not enough to get you by, well, you probably weren't going to win anyway.

Thanks for all the responses to the thread, it's been a fun and interesting read.

---

You just nailed it,GW11. How one answers the questions and their demeanor means everything. Not a lot of hunters know how to answer questions from law enforcement. Be polite,but,be firm. The less said,the better.

Thanks for the exercise. Was certainly worth thinking about it.
However, as you stated below, this is the conclusion I reached before and this example just validates it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GW11

.... There's always a chance you will run into the wrong guy on the wrong day and you'll go home with a ticket in your pocket no matter how hard you tried to be in compliance. .....

---

For the record: Never got a ticket, had nice encounters so far, but still feel better if I don't get checked.

Always be polite. Also be definite in your answers. It's ok to take a minute and collect your thoughts. If you sound unsure of yourself, or that you may not exactly know the rules, it will go worse for you.

In possession of lead shot while in pursue of migratory birds. Had the dead bird in the box been a woodcock this charge might not have been laid.

Then, having a firearm of greater energy than the low power 22 caliber (now it's a firearm with greater muzzle energy than 400 ft-lbs), when without a licence, in an open season of big game.

Failure to wear blaze orange while hunting small game, in an open season for big game season.

Remember a CO does not have to catch you red hand, he only has to suspect you are about to do something illegal. With a 30-30 on board in an area where moose are known to be present, and not having a licence could also result in a charge for poaching moose.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary... did they have the target they were using to sight-in the rifle?

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 possession of lead shot while in pursue of migratory birds. Had the dead bird in the box been a woodcock this charge might not have been laid.

Then, having a firearm of greater energy than the low power 22 caliber (now it's a firearm with greater muzzle energy than 400 ft-lbs), when without a licence, in an open season of big game.

Failure to wear blaze orange while hunting small game, in an open season for big game season.

Remember a CO does not have to catch you red hand, he only has to suspect you are about to do something illegal. With a 30-30 on board in an area where moose are known to be present, and not having a licence could also result in a charge for poaching moose.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary... did they have the target they were using to sight-in the rifle?

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

---

You're a bit late to the party

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

In possession of lead shot while in pursue of migratory birds. Had the dead bird in the box been a woodcock this charge might not have been laid.

Then, having a firearm of greater energy than the low power 22 caliber (now it's a firearm with greater muzzle energy than 400 ft-lbs), when without a licence, in an open season of big game.

Failure to wear blaze orange while hunting small game, in an open season for big game season.

Remember a CO does not have to catch you red hand, he only has to suspect you are about to do something illegal. With a 30-30 on board in an area where moose are known to be present, and not having a licence could also result in a charge for poaching moose.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary... did they have the target they were using to sight-in the rifle?

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

---

Wrong on all counts,Gun Nut. You need to read all the posts from the beginning. You also need to keep in mind that several posters are either active or recently retired LEO's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GW11

Does anyone remember exactly when hunter orange became a legal requirement in Ontario? This case may have been closer to the late 90's. I'm having a hard time finding anything with my google-fu.

---

September 1, 1987 hunter orange became mandatory for deer, moose and bear gun hunters in Ontario

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Be polite,but,be firm. The less said,the better.

---

BINGO! And therein lies the biggest issue I have with CO's. They will go out of their way to trick you into saying something that they can then prod more on. It's like they operate under the premise that the person is hiding something and by gosh we're going to find out what? The less said to them the better for sure!

Good example Gw.

Thanks for sharing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

BINGO! And therein lies the biggest issue I have with CO's. They will go out of their way to trick you into saying something that they can then prod more on. It's like they operate under the premise that the person is hiding something and by gosh we're going to find out what? The less said to them the better for sure!

---

Since most poachers don't wear tee shirts that read " HEY I'M A POACHER" it takes some investigation to determine either way. Let them do their job be polite. They are not out too get you. Just enforce the rules and regulations we all agree to abide by when we purchase our licences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

BINGO! And therein lies the biggest issue I have with CO's. They will go out of their way to trick you into saying something that they can then prod more on. It's like they operate under the premise that the person is hiding something and by gosh we're going to find out what? The less said to them the better for sure!

---

Definitely agree with that one.

Another example from about 5 years ago...

My Dad, brother and I were hunting some public land for the ML season, which falls around the 1st week of December here. My brother was only going to hunt 2 or 3 days so if we got a deer within those first couple of days we were going to use his tag first. As it turned out, I shot a buck in the first 15 minutes of opening morning. We made the collective decision to tag the deer with my brother's tag, hang it in a tree overnight and bring it home the next day. The main reason being that we all came in an SUV and didn't really need to stuff the three of us, all our gear and the deer in it when we could bring a trailer in with us the next morning.

The next afternoon on our way back home we were pulled over by an unmarked truck about 10 minutes from home. We had already driven at least 30 minutes from the land we were hunting. The CO said he saw the deer in the trailer and "had to stop us" as part of his duty, but I'm not so sure. My feeling is that someone saw the deer and some blaze orange in the SUV and called the TIPS line on us thinking that there wasn't a firearms deer season in December. Our route home took us through a couple of small villages so it's entirely possible. There's a tip - if you don't want to be pulled over when driving to and from your hunting spots, lose the blaze orange. Just make sure you're no longer "hunting".

Anyway, this fellow DID NOT like the fact that we shot the deer the day before and were bringing it home that day. I think (and I can understand his position) that he had convinced himself that Dad or I had shot the deer the day before, hung it up without a tag and brought my brother with us the next day to tag it and bring it home. He asked each of us in 3 or 4 different ways - "So, who shot the deer?" "When did you say it was shot?" "How many of you were hunting yesterday?" "Sorry, you say you shot the deer, but it's his tag, have I got this right?". Then he would repeat all those questions with the next guy but in a slightly different way.

Then he was back and forth from the trailer, sticking a thermometer in the deer I think, then returned to the window for a few more questions. He was being thorough, but definitely trying to make one of us slip up with our answers. We weren't doing anything wrong, he just didn't couldn't wrap his head around why we would shoot the deer one day and bring it out another.

Eventually the mood relaxed and it ended with some small talk about deer numbers and he told us that additional tag cuts would be coming soon, which ended up being true. All in all not a very comfortable experience. We definitely felt like we were treated a little like poachers first, outdoorsmen second, but as said above, they have to find a way to do their job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GW11

Definitely agree with that one.

Another example from about 5 years ago...

My Dad, brother and I were hunting some public land for the ML season, which falls around the 1st week of December here. My brother was only going to hunt 2 or 3 days so if we got a deer within those first couple of days we were going to use his tag first. As it turned out, I shot a buck in the first 15 minutes of opening morning. We made the collective decision to tag the deer with my brother's tag, hang it in a tree overnight and bring it home the next day. The main reason being that we all came in an SUV and didn't really need to stuff the three of us, all our gear and the deer in it when we could bring a trailer in with us the next morning.

The next afternoon on our way back home we were pulled over by an unmarked truck about 10 minutes from home. We had already driven at least 30 minutes from the land we were hunting. The CO said he saw the deer in the trailer and "had to stop us" as part of his duty, but I'm not so sure. My feeling is that someone saw the deer and some blaze orange in the SUV and called the TIPS line on us thinking that there wasn't a firearms deer season in December. Our route home took us through a couple of small villages so it's entirely possible. There's a tip - if you don't want to be pulled over when driving to and from your hunting spots, lose the blaze orange. Just make sure you're no longer "hunting".

Anyway, this fellow DID NOT like the fact that we shot the deer the day before and were bringing it home that day. I think (and I can understand his position) that he had convinced himself that Dad or I had shot the deer the day before, hung it up without a tag and brought my brother with us the next day to tag it and bring it home. He asked each of us in 3 or 4 different ways - "So, who shot the deer?" "When did you say it was shot?" "How many of you were hunting yesterday?" "Sorry, you say you shot the deer, but it's his tag, have I got this right?". Then he would repeat all those questions with the next guy but in a slightly different way.

Then he was back and forth from the trailer, sticking a thermometer in the deer I think, then returned to the window for a few more questions. He was being thorough, but definitely trying to make one of us slip up with our answers. We weren't doing anything wrong, he just didn't couldn't wrap his head around why we would shoot the deer one day and bring it out another.

Eventually the mood relaxed and it ended with some small talk about deer numbers and he told us that additional tag cuts would be coming soon, which ended up being true. All in all not a very comfortable experience. We definitely felt like we were treated a little like poachers first, outdoorsmen second, but as said above, they have to find a way to do their job.

---

See your painting them in a negative light. We all whine that they are not doing enough to catch poachers yet when the investigate something we are all to ready to jump on them for being thorough. They were just making sure everything was legit. They weren't trying to make you slip up that can only happen if you weren't forthright right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

See your painting them in a negative light. We all whine that they are not doing enough to catch poachers yet when the investigate something we are all to ready to jump on them for being thorough. They were just making sure everything was legit. They weren't trying to make you slip up that can only happen if you weren't forthright right?

---

I wouldn't say that I was painting them in a negative light. As I said in the post above, I could understand his position and they have to find a way to do their job. But... until you've been grilled at the side of the road for 10 minutes, basically asked the same question a dozen different ways, you might not understand how uncomfortable it is. You also have to understand that they're just a person doing a job, not some back-woods vigilante bringing poachers to justice. Well, some people just aren't nice people and some people don't like their jobs very much. That's reality.

I went through school in the mid 90's with the intention of becoming a CO but eventually my career path led a different way. Believe me, some of the folks that went through the program were not people you would want to run into if they eventually became one. Some were borderline anti's with visions of saving the world's animals. A few were just jerks on a power trip and couldn't wait to get out there and ruin someone's day. Most of them were good people though. One of my best friends and my old college roommate is a CO today. I keep in touch with him regularly and often ask his advice on certain situations. The biggest thing I've learned from him is that you just never know when or where they will be watching.

I don't think negatively of them at all really, I'd just rather not run into them personally while in the field. Anyone that says they enjoy it hasn't ran into too many or they've dealt with the same one every time.

Been there done that. Have been checked over the years more times than I can count from while trolling for salmon on Lake O to back lake duck hunting. Even been cited for not immediately picking up a duck. All and all part of being out there. I for one love seeing them out there and don't mind being checked. I appreciated seeing them out there. I can only imagine how hard their job is considering that even people in the clear don't want to see them.

Personally , I have know 9 C.O.'s out of those there was only one that seemed to have the attitude that if you are out with a gun of any sort you must be doing something wrong and he would try to trip you up constantly and he sure didn't like it when you proved him wrong even with something simple as to what road or whose property he was on.
If he caught you out fishing , he would always ask "where are the other fish " , he was a regular pain in the ---.
All the others were/are great guys to deal with, there was only the one who has fortunately retired and made many honest hunters and fishermen/women happy.

Being a very tenacious investigator is one thing,but,being a peckerhead never got anyone extra pay. I know from personal experience because I've seen some dillies. Skilled investigators know how to ask questions and make leading conversation which get subjects to make statements they can use either for immediate action or to file for future reference while gathering intel. Most can accomplish this and the subject doesn't even realize what they said. These are the people that have brilliant carreers in law enforcement with a high degree of personal integrity,prestige and self reward.
Then,there's the type like several posters have described,complete village idiots with the personalities of the south end of a northbound horse. When confronted by people like that,I always give terse yes or no answers,offer zero information and cut them off when it becomes evident that they're merely on fishing expeditions. They can do their jobs,but,I'll be damned if I'll hand it to them on a silver platter.

Never had a bad experience myself and hope it stays that way. I have a lot of respect for the COs I have encountered and they have always shown me the same.

My biggest complaint about MNR enforcement training was that they never taught officers how to do a proper field interview. It was on the job training. Some of the least respected officers were those that didn't hunt, fish or take part in any outdoor activities.

Don't think I've encountered a CO in the field in over a decade. I suppose it makes a big difference what you're hunting/fishing for, when, and where.

A while ago my buddy and I were fishing below the Belwood dam for brown trout just after the trout opener. Buddy was using a worm and a float and I was using a #2 bronze mepps ( seems reasonable ). I managed to hook and land 4 pike that were quickly released without even being removed from the river using my pliers .
After the 4th was released there was a voice from the hill above ( if u know the dam u know where I am talking about.) It was a game warden with a beautiful husky calling my buddy and I up. He informed me he believed I was fishing pike out of season and he was going to write me a ticket. He was the nicest guy in the world but I couldnt convice him I was really after trout and the pike were just getting in the way.lol.
He saw that the fish were carefully released without me ever touching them but I still got the ticket for 79. $ if I remember correctly. So I opted to fight the ticket in court. D day came and the CO took the stand first and presented his side of the events ( they were all true) and then it was my turn. I was representing myself and I came prepared with lures I would use if I was targeting pike, 5 in rapalas, #5 mepps ect. I also brought pictures from previous fishing trips for trout and pike with the various lures I was using at those times.

Well , the JP found my side of the story credible and dismissed the charges and as we were leaving the courtroom the CO came over shook my hand and said " well done " and admitted he wasn't much of a fisherman and proceeded to apologize.
His name is Denny Novak , a true gentleman just doing his job an I never had any hard feelings toward him whatsoever. This took place 28 years ago when I was 17.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Don't think I've encountered a CO in the field in over a decade. I suppose it makes a big difference what you're hunting/fishing for, when, and where.

---

You never ran into them at Hullet? Don't know if its an area legend but heard of a guy that got nipped for crossing one of those gravel dead end roads with a loaded gun was following his dog that was trailing a pheasant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hunter John

A while ago my buddy and I were fishing below the Belwood dam for brown trout just after the trout opener. Buddy was using a worm and a float and I was using a #2 bronze mepps ( seems reasonable ). I managed to hook and land 4 pike that were quickly released without even being removed from the river using my pliers .
After the 4th was released there was a voice from the hill above ( if u know the dam u know where I am talking about.) It was a game warden with a beautiful husky calling my buddy and I up. He informed me he believed I was fishing pike out of season and he was going to write me a ticket. He was the nicest guy in the world but I couldnt convice him I was really after trout and the pike were just getting in the way.lol.
He saw that the fish were carefully released without me ever touching them but I still got the ticket for 79. $ if I remember correctly. So I opted to fight the ticket in court. D day came and the CO took the stand first and presented his side of the events ( they were all true) and then it was my turn. I was representing myself and I came prepared with lures I would use if I was targeting pike, 5 in rapalas, #5 mepps ect. I also brought pictures from previous fishing trips for trout and pike with the various lures I was using at those times.

Well , the JP found my side of the story credible and dismissed the charges and as we were leaving the courtroom the CO came over shook my hand and said " well done " and admitted he wasn't much of a fisherman and proceeded to apologize.
His name is Denny Novak , a true gentleman just doing his job an I never had any hard feelings toward him whatsoever. This took place 28 years ago when I was 17.

---

Great post HJ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

Been there done that. Have been checked over the years more times than I can count from while trolling for salmon on Lake O to back lake duck hunting. Even been cited for not immediately picking up a duck. All and all part of being out there. I for one love seeing them out there and don't mind being checked. I appreciated seeing them out there. I can only imagine how hard their job is considering that even people in the clear don't want to see them.

---

I like that they're out there doing their jobs, but it doesn't mean I personally want to see them. Same thing with police. We like to know they're around but nobody likes having one in their rear view mirror.

My buddy told me that the hardest part of the job for him when he started was starting in a small town and knowing everyone personally. Everyone expected a break because "we played hockey together" or "went to the same school".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

You never ran into them at Hullet? Don't know if its an area legend but heard of a guy that got nipped for crossing one of those gravel dead end roads with a loaded gun was following his dog that was trailing a pheasant.

---

Never. But I always unload approaching a road just in case ... shells out of the chambers. :)

Just like Cops there are good and bad. I have met many good ones and a few idiots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

Since most poachers don't wear tee shirts that read " HEY I'M A POACHER" it takes some investigation to determine either way. Let them do their job be polite. They are not out too get you. Just enforce the rules and regulations we all agree to abide by when we purchase our licences.

---

I don't see a lot of folks wearing tee-shirts announcing they commonly speed or go through stops signs either and yet as many times as I have gone through ride checks, I have never heard the officer asking how fast I was travelling down the highway or street, prior to being stopped? No trick questions to trip you up. No assumptions on their part to try and get you squirming? Just a simple "Hi, we're checking for drinking and driving" "have you had anything to drink today?" and away you go.... Pleasant and cordial the way it should be unless of course you've been drinking? They're not "investigating anything" because there is nothing to investigate and they don't assume that you've done anything wrong. Pretty simple interaction in my mind?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

See your painting them in a negative light. We all whine that they are not doing enough to catch poachers yet when the investigate something we are all to ready to jump on them for being thorough. They were just making sure everything was legit. They weren't trying to make you slip up that can only happen if you weren't forthright right?

---

See, there you go with this "investigate" thing again. What are they investigating? What reason do they have to "investigate" a couple hunters driving down a road? Stop them, yes. Ask to see their license, yes. Ask them if they've been successful (whatever?) and away you should go. Driving down the road or sitting outside at the hunt camp does not and should not give them suspicion that you have done anything illegal. Yet time after time, they will prod and poke and make a complete nuisance of themselves over nothing. Its the game they play constantly and they get no respect what so ever from me for playing it. Most of them now are wannabe cops that don't make the grade and settle for being a fish cop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

I don't see a lot of folks wearing tee-shirts announcing they commonly speed or go through stops signs either and yet as many times as I have gone through ride checks, I have never heard the officer asking how fast I was travelling down the highway or street, prior to being stopped? No trick questions to trip you up. No assumptions on their part to try and get you squirming? Just a simple "Hi, we're checking for drinking and driving" "have you had anything to drink today?" and away you go.... Pleasant and cordial the way it should be unless of course you've been drinking? They're not "investigating anything" because there is nothing to investigate and they don't assume that you've done anything wrong. Pretty simple interaction in my mind?





See, there you go with this "investigate" thing again. What are they investigating? What reason do they have to "investigate" a couple hunters driving down a road? Stop them, yes. Ask to see their license, yes. Ask them if they've been successful (whatever?) and away you should go. Driving down the road or sitting outside at the hunt camp does not and should not give them suspicion that you have done anything illegal. Yet time after time, they will prod and poke and make a complete nuisance of themselves over nothing. Its the game they play constantly and they get no respect what so ever from me for playing it. Most of them now are wannabe cops that don't make the grade and settle for being a fish cop.

---

Really than why all this fuss about carding than? In reality your response to the question is irrelevant its done so they can catch your breath for a whiff of alcohol sneaky eh? If they a sniffing around you its because something stinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

Really than why all this fuss about carding than? In reality your response to the question is irrelevant its done so they can catch your breath for a whiff of alcohol sneaky eh? If they a sniffing around you its because something stinks.

---

Carding? Who's said anything about carding? Really, is this the best response you could come up with?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

I don't see a lot of folks wearing tee-shirts announcing they commonly speed or go through stops signs either and yet as many times as I have gone through ride checks, I have never heard the officer asking how fast I was travelling down the highway or street, prior to being stopped? No trick questions to trip you up. No assumptions on their part to try and get you squirming? Just a simple "Hi, we're checking for drinking and driving" "have you had anything to drink today?" and away you go.... Pleasant and cordial the way it should be unless of course you've been drinking? They're not "investigating anything" because there is nothing to investigate and they don't assume that you've done anything wrong. Pretty simple interaction in my mind?




See, there you go with this "investigate" thing again. What are they investigating? What reason do they have to "investigate" a couple hunters driving down a road? Stop them, yes. Ask to see their license, yes. Ask them if they've been successful (whatever?) and away you should go. Driving down the road or sitting outside at the hunt camp does not and should not give them suspicion that you have done anything illegal. Yet time after time, they will prod and poke and make a complete nuisance of themselves over nothing. Its the game they play constantly and they get no respect what so ever from me for playing it. Most of them now are wannabe cops that don't make the grade and settle for being a fish cop.

---

Wanna be cops. Lol. Harder to get a CO job then a cop job. If you feel you are being harassed by a CO call the district office and talk to a supervisor.

CO's have to follow the same rules as cops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

I don't see a lot of folks wearing tee-shirts announcing they commonly speed or go through stops signs either and yet as many times as I have gone through ride checks, I have never heard the officer asking how fast I was travelling down the highway or street, prior to being stopped? No trick questions to trip you up. No assumptions on their part to try and get you squirming?

---

But these stops aren't really similar. If the cops stop you because they're looking for a vehicle that left the scene of an accident, you can bet they're going to be asking what you were up to before they stopped you. Of course the CO who stops you isn't going to stop at "You guys hunting? Okay, then."

In both of the situations GW described on this thread, the CO had clear reasons to investigate. In the first instance, you have two guys riding with a shotgun in the cab during a gun season for moose, sans orange, and GW already told us that their original plan was to keep an eye out for grouse. In the second instance, you have hunters with a deer after the season has closed. In both cases there is reasonable cause to think you might have an offence. You can't fault the CO for investigating, because investigating is the job you pay him to do.

Tricky questions ought not to bother you. You're not obliged to answer them, you know. Identify yourself, provide your licence, and beyond that any answers you give are voluntary. You can't be held for refusing to answer a question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GW11

Definitely agree with that one.

Another example from about 5 years ago...

My Dad, brother and I were hunting some public land for the ML season, which falls around the 1st week of December here. My brother was only going to hunt 2 or 3 days so if we got a deer within those first couple of days we were going to use his tag first. As it turned out, I shot a buck in the first 15 minutes of opening morning. We made the collective decision to tag the deer with my brother's tag, hang it in a tree overnight and bring it home the next day. The main reason being that we all came in an SUV and didn't really need to stuff the three of us, all our gear and the deer in it when we could bring a trailer in with us the next morning.

The next afternoon on our way back home we were pulled over by an unmarked truck about 10 minutes from home. We had already driven at least 30 minutes from the land we were hunting. The CO said he saw the deer in the trailer and "had to stop us" as part of his duty, but I'm not so sure. My feeling is that someone saw the deer and some blaze orange in the SUV and called the TIPS line on us thinking that there wasn't a firearms deer season in December. Our route home took us through a couple of small villages so it's entirely possible. There's a tip - if you don't want to be pulled over when driving to and from your hunting spots, lose the blaze orange. Just make sure you're no longer "hunting".

Anyway, this fellow DID NOT like the fact that we shot the deer the day before and were bringing it home that day. I think (and I can understand his position) that he had convinced himself that Dad or I had shot the deer the day before, hung it up without a tag and brought my brother with us the next day to tag it and bring it home. He asked each of us in 3 or 4 different ways - "So, who shot the deer?" "When did you say it was shot?" "How many of you were hunting yesterday?" "Sorry, you say you shot the deer, but it's his tag, have I got this right?". Then he would repeat all those questions with the next guy but in a slightly different way.

Then he was back and forth from the trailer, sticking a thermometer in the deer I think, then returned to the window for a few more questions. He was being thorough, but definitely trying to make one of us slip up with our answers. We weren't doing anything wrong, he just didn't couldn't wrap his head around why we would shoot the deer one day and bring it out another.

Eventually the mood relaxed and it ended with some small talk about deer numbers and he told us that additional tag cuts would be coming soon, which ended up being true. All in all not a very comfortable experience. We definitely felt like we were treated a little like poachers first, outdoorsmen second, but as said above, they have to find a way to do their job.

---

Definitely nothing wrong with getting pulled over for a check, but the question is where it stops.
The situations people use the expression 'poaching' always gives me a chuckle: Not encasing a firearm on the way in/out, wearing camo on the orange hat, having lead shot in the glove box, etc. Really that's what they worry about?
To me poaching is taking game out of season, wrong gender/age, not having a licence, letting meat spoil.
That's what they should be after IMHO, but giving insignificant tickets to the average guy takes less effort and yields a higher turn out.
Treating hunters by default as a bunch of rednecks won't get neither of us anywhere. The vast majority of hunters follow the rules and want that hunting will be around for future generations. The MNR cannot be everywhere, where hunters are. So instead of capitalizing on that, they continue the "policing" rather than supporting their customers. I'm not putting the blame on the COs; the rules are set up to toss out little tickets instead of major fines for actual poaching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

But these stops aren't really similar. If the cops stop you because they're looking for a vehicle that left the scene of an accident, you can bet they're going to be asking what you were up to before they stopped you. Of course the CO who stops you isn't going to stop at "You guys hunting? Okay, then."

In both of the situations GW described on this thread, the CO had clear reasons to investigate. In the first instance, you have two guys riding with a shotgun in the cab during a gun season for moose, sans orange, and GW already told us that their original plan was to keep an eye out for grouse. In the second instance, you have hunters with a deer after the season has closed. In both cases there is reasonable cause to think you might have an offence. You can't fault the CO for investigating, because investigating is the job you pay him to do.

Tricky questions ought not to bother you. You're not obliged to answer them, you know. Identify yourself, provide your licence, and beyond that any answers you give are voluntary. You can't be held for refusing to answer a question.

---

Thanks you always have a better way of saying my thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waftrudnir

Definitely nothing wrong with getting pulled over for a check, but the question is where it stops.
The situations people use the expression 'poaching' always gives me a chuckle: Not encasing a firearm on the way in/out, wearing camo on the orange hat, having lead shot in the glove box, etc. Really that's what they worry about?
To me poaching is taking game out of season, wrong gender/age, not having a licence, letting meat spoil.
That's what they should be after IMHO, but giving insignificant tickets to the average guy takes less effort and yields a higher turn out.
Treating hunters by default as a bunch of rednecks won't get neither of us anywhere. The vast majority of hunters follow the rules and want that hunting will be around for future generations. The MNR cannot be everywhere, where hunters are. So instead of capitalizing on that, they continue the "policing" rather than supporting their customers. I'm not putting the blame on the COs; the rules are set up to toss out little tickets instead of major fines for actual poaching.

---

In a perfect world I would agree with you. Unfortunately humans are not perfect. Basically people fall into three groups. The A group are those very few ones that follow every rule and reg to the letter of the law regardless of who is watching. Than there are the few C individuals that couldn't care less about anything else as long as their needs are meet. Than the vast majority of us that fall into the B group that walk the line interpreting laws to suit their needs all the while saying its just a small infraction if they feel the need to break a rule. Problem is the A group leading by example doesn't pull the C group up however more often than not its the C group that pulls the B group down to their level. Just look whats projected to happen in Port Hope come Fall 2016 during the salmon run. With the degeneration of the fishery to a free for all measures will be enacted to severly police the area with zero tolerance for any and all infractions. The city will pay for a cop to be specially training in the MNR and will patrol the stretch 24/7. That is why I feel a strong presents needs to be out there. A figure of authority needs to be that a figure of authority not your buddy but a watch dog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

But these stops aren't really similar. If the cops stop you because they're looking for a vehicle that left the scene of an accident, you can bet they're going to be asking what you were up to before they stopped you. Of course the CO who stops you isn't going to stop at "You guys hunting? Okay, then."

In both of the situations GW described on this thread, the CO had clear reasons to investigate. In the first instance, you have two guys riding with a shotgun in the cab during a gun season for moose, sans orange, and GW already told us that their original plan was to keep an eye out for grouse. In the second instance, you have hunters with a deer after the season has closed. In both cases there is reasonable cause to think you might have an offence. You can't fault the CO for investigating, because investigating is the job you pay him to do.

Tricky questions ought not to bother you. You're not obliged to answer them, you know. Identify yourself, provide your licence, and beyond that any answers you give are voluntary. You can't be held for refusing to answer a question.

---

Not to nitpick at you here Welsh, but this was during the open bows/muzzle-loaders only deer season. We were bringing the deer home on the Tuesday and the season was open until Saturday. I imagine if we had been transporting this deer home during the closed season we might have had a few more questions to answer. ;)

Well, I couldn't remember the details. Anyway, point is there is some grounds on which to investigate. ;)

Re Waftrudnir, I would hope no one would ever get charged just for having a box of lead shells in their truck while duck hunting. (Actually as I posted above, at this point I think you could beat any such charge in Ontario.) On the other hand if you're hunting ducks with lead I'd expect you to be charged. The CO has the job of figuring out which is which.

People need to follow the rules, it I plain and simple. If there are any grey area charges, then that is what court is for. If you think the police or a Co made a bad decision, then you can tell it to a judge. In another thread, there is a guy upset about getting a ticket for not submitting a moose questionnaire. His argument is that he forgot to do it, and is complaining that other people have not been charged. It boggles the mind to think that some folks think that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arclight

People need to follow the rules, it I plain and simple. If there are any grey area charges, then that is what court is for. If you think the police or a Co made a bad decision, then you can tell it to a judge. In another thread, there is a guy upset about getting a ticket for not submitting a moose questionnaire. His argument is that he forgot to do it, and is complaining that other people have not been charged. It boggles the mind to think that some folks think that way.

---

^^^^^This.

People often overlay the "Gee, and I guess you drive the speed limit all the time?" argument on this one.

That's not exactly comparing apples to apples, now is it?

Speed limits are enforced, however culturally we are accustomed to some leeway, as law enforcement has the existing practice in place. Why is that? Well, if you inflate your tires properly, and they're sized right, you still may vary in your speed ( off your speedo by as much as 5kmH) depending on your rate of travel. There are other mitigating factors as well.

COs have a much more rigid set of rules to follow. While an LEO knows when you are engaging in the activity of driving, a CO needs to make that determination, often while out in the field. There are many things that need to be factored in and determined. An LEO has one, maybe two.

Think on this one for a sec. You get pulled over for speeding, maybe not by much, but say 40km over.....you get a fine, right?

You get caught violating the rules while hunting or fishing, you can lose your boat, your truck, the gun you had etc. So the impulse to evade when asked might just be a little higher than some. A CO knows this when they are speaking to anyone out in the field.

I encountered my 1st CO this year, in 30+ years of hunting and fishing. Altogether a decent experience with the guy. Open and forthright, and once done, then small talk. Actually glad to see him out in my neck of the woods ( Arden ON), and won't mind at all if I see him again.

[QUOTE=Bluebulldog;941458


Speed limits are enforced, however culturally we are accustomed to some leeway, as law enforcement has the existing practice in place. Why is that? Well, if you inflate your tires properly, and they're sized right, you still may vary in your speed ( off your speedo by as much as 5kmH) depending on your rate of travel. There are other mitigating factors as well.


Think on this one for a sec. You get pulled over for speeding, maybe not by much, but say 40km over.....you get a fine, right?


.[/QUOTE]

"maybe not by much"..... 40 km over holy crap what you thinking?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

"maybe not by much"..... 40 km over holy crap what you thinking?

---

Hahaaha, well I was thinking that 50 over, you lose your car....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebulldog

Hahaaha, well I was thinking that 50 over, you lose your car....

---

Would love to see the look when you say " Gee officer at least I wasn't doing 50KM over". The last time I was pulled over already had my license out the window before the cop even pulled onto the road. Could see her walk up with a what the ? is going on. Greeted her with ya saw you last minute new I was toast. Went back to her car came back with a response knocked it down to 10 over next time be more careful.

I used to laugh when someone said "That's OK.It makes up for all the times you didn't catch me." LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

"maybe not by much"..... 40 km over holy crap what you thinking?

---

The law is black and white. You always have the option of explaining things to a judge if you get charged.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GW11

OK, so here's how the situation played out. Many of you were right from the start. No charges were laid, but I think things could have gone differently if questions had of been answered differently.

A couple of clarifications first... This was probably closer to 20 years ago and the "two guys" were actually my good friend (soon to be my BIL) and me personally. I thought that the "no charges" would be more apparent if I was writing about myself, because most people are reluctant to write about their own mistakes. I won't lie, we were pretty stupid to have taken that route home without thinking it over a little first. My understanding of the regs at that time were pretty limited. Yes, I took the hunter safety course and passed all the tests with flying colours, but I was brought up in a big woods, private land family camp where the "law" was what the old-timers said it was and a "CO" was a mythical being only to be seen on crown land sometimes.

So, we were about halfway across this access road when I see a white truck come around the bend in front of us and they put on their flashers. I immediately pulled to the side and waited for the two CO's to approach the truck. I believe they were stopping anyone they came across on this access road to check licences, etc. Our seat belts were on, as was asked above, and although hunting some grouse had been in mind when we left the duck pond on the family land, the amount of traffic and hunters on this access road had quickly changed our mind about doing any hunting. We were, in truth, just passing through at this point. But, the gun was still on the front seat and the shell box was in plain view. Here's how the conversation went:

CO#1 - Leans in the now open window, eyes the shotgun on the seat and asks "So what are you boys up to?"

Me - "Just on our way back home, thought we would come this way to see if anyone had a moose on the ground"

CO#1 - "What were you doing before you came through here?"

Me - "Duck hunting on family property off XXXXX road a few kilometres back"

CO#2 - "You guys get any ducks?"

Me - "Yes, just one, it's in the back"

CO#1 - "How about you fellas step out of the truck and show us what you got"

So, at this point, at the peak of my nervousness of having run into a real CO, I go to step out of the truck and realize that I had my foot on the brake and the clutch the entire time. I lift my foot off both and the truck lurches forward and stalls.

CO#1 - "In a hurry to go somewhere?"

Me - "Haha... no... uh... I forgot that it was still in gear... sorry."

CO#2 - "This is the duck?"

Me - "Yep, ringneck, the only one we got all morning" (the day was cool, we weren't worried about it spoiling)

CO#1 - "Can I see your shell bags?"

Me - "Yes, right there, have a look"

CO#1 - "Am I going to find any lead in here?"

Me - "No, the only lead is up in the front, it stayed there while we were duck hunting as well"

CO#1 - "Can I see your licences please?"

We hand them over, my buddy also hands his firearms licence over along with his registration slips for his guns.

CO#2 - "OK, this is good, we don't care about that stuff" (hands back the firearms papers and licence)

CO#1 - "What firearms do you have with you anyway?"

Me - "I have the side x side 12 gauge you saw up front"

Buddy - "I have an 870 12 gauge in that case there, and a Winchester .30-30 in that case there"

Long...... long..... long.... pause in the conversation.

CO#1 - "Do you boys have moose licences?"

Me/Buddy - "No, but we aren't hunting moose, we're just driving home."

CO#1 - "But you're passing through an area where moose are present during an open season for moose with a high-powered rifle in your possession without a moose licence."

Me - "Sorry, I didn't realize that we were doing anything wrong. We just brought the rifle up to sight in after duck hunting. Deer season starts in two weeks so we were just getting it ready. There's the box and target we were shooting, there's the empty shell casings to go along with it."

At this point it became very apparent that CO#1 (older fellow) wanted to find something. He was still rifling through everything in the back of the truck. CO#2 (younger fellow) could tell that we weren't intending to break any laws, just perhaps not being very careful about attracting unwanted attention.

CO#2 - "It's all good 'Bob' (not sure now what his name was), they're just on their way home, maybe just could have picked a different route is all"

CO#1 Reluctantly, after finishing his inspection - "OK boys, we believe you're doing what you say you're doing. Be more careful next time about how things might look to us when you get stopped"

That was that. Away we went, a little more aware and a little humbled. I truly think the way we answered the questions was the reason we weren't fined. If we'd said we were grouse hunting, maybe we would have been fined for not wearing blaze. Amazingly enough, he never even mentioned the shotgun or shells in the front seat, even though he knew full well they were there. The rifle in the back of the truck, although it looked bad, clearly was not there for poaching moose. We had the target, casings, etc., to support our story. There was no issue with the duck or our duck gear. That was my first encounter with a CO but not the last, and they didn't all go as well. There's always a chance you will run into the wrong guy on the wrong day and you'll go home with a ticket in your pocket no matter how hard you tried to be in compliance. Believe me on that one, I'd be happy to explain it to anyone through PM.

I guess the point of this thread was to point out that although there might be a dozen different directions that an encounter with a CO could go, the attitude/honesty of the hunter, the mood of the CO, the CO's individual interpretation of the law and the circumstances of the day will dictate the outcome. The regs are grey in many places. Most of the time we ourselves can't even agree on what certain things mean and we're expected to know and follow these rules.

My feelings on the matter are (and have been for a long time), use common sense, follow the regs as well as you can based on your interpretation, be prepared to answer questions and explain yourself. If that's not enough to get you by, well, you probably weren't going to win anyway.

Thanks for all the responses to the thread, it's been a fun and interesting read.

---

If you are hunting you are hunting, these guys have been around the block, they know when people are lying and when people are being truthful. You can legally have all the guns you want in your vehicle, you cannot hunt from a vehicle, if you were hunting it would come out if you said you were hunting but most likely if you were lying your body language would point that out too.

Thanks for this

The fact that they had a shot gun for birds with no blaze orange in an open moose season says it all. to shoot grouse you need blaze orange in moose season. With the shot gun on the seat means to a CO they were hunting. Also you cant discharge a fire arm from a motorised vehicle so they would have to get out to shoot, without BLAZE ORANGE. Case closed in my opinion. Luckily you were not asked about grouse hunting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tenpoint guy

The fact that they had a shot gun for birds with no blaze orange in an open moose season says it all. to shoot grouse you need blaze orange in moose season. With the shot gun on the seat means to a CO they were hunting. Also you cant discharge a fire arm from a motorised vehicle so they would have to get out to shoot, without BLAZE ORANGE. Case closed in my opinion. Luckily you were not asked about grouse hunting.

---

Sort of. Legally, you can drive around all you like with a shotgun or rifle on the seat, hunting or not. If I got stopped in my driveway with a shotgun on the seat I'm no longer hunting right? You would want to make sure that it's in a case outside of legal hunting hours but there's no legal requirement to encase a gun and put it out of sight as soon as you decide that you're not hunting. (Example - when you leave the bush road from your hunting area and get on the main roads that run through areas you're no longer allowed to hunt, you're no longer actually hunting)

Of course that being said, I wouldn't recommend using this logic in downtown Toronto or something. It would likely cause you a lot more headaches than driving the back roads up north.

On a recent deer hunting trip to NW Ontario, my gun was in the seat with me for the ride out of the hunting area, through town and all the way back to camp. Shotgun as well in case we saw any grouse. They were basically out of the case from legal light - legal light. Driving spot to spot, hunting, whatever.

I'll never be sure why the CO didn't make it a bigger issue. Maybe simply because when he asked, I said we were heading home, not grouse hunting. Maybe their biggest focus was on moose hunters and they weren't in the mood to start splitting hairs over whether or not two guys in a truck with a shotgun were actually hunting grouse or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tenpoint guy

The fact that they had a shot gun for birds with no blaze orange in an open moose season says it all. to shoot grouse you need blaze orange in moose season. With the shot gun on the seat means to a CO they were hunting. Also you cant discharge a fire arm from a motorised vehicle so they would have to get out to shoot, without BLAZE ORANGE. Case closed in my opinion. Luckily you were not asked about grouse hunting.

---

There's NO offense in having an uncased firearm on the front seat of a vehicle as long as it's unloaded and attended. It's NOT an offense to use a vehicle,either. It's only illegal to SHOOT from the vehicle. Once one gets out of the vehicle and takes the shotgun,(but,not until) that constitutes hunting in every sense of the word and the hunter MUST put on a blaze hat and vest during an whatever big game season is open at the time as soon as he/she gets out. Failure to do so, AT THAT TIME, is what will get you a ticket. The devil is in the details.

this was helpful for a question i was asking myself. thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

There's NO offense in having an uncased firearm on the front seat of a vehicle as long as it's unloaded and attended. It's NOT an offense to use a vehicle,either. It's only illegal to SHOOT from the vehicle. Once one gets out of the vehicle and takes the shotgun,(but,not until) that constitutes hunting in every sense of the word and the hunter MUST put on a blaze hat and vest during an whatever big game season is open at the time as soon as he/she gets out. Failure to do so, AT THAT TIME, is what will get you a ticket. The devil is in the details.

---