More bureaucratic changes to the migratory bird act

The feds are changing the way we hunt waterfowl.
Canada gazette part 1 volume 153 edition 22 section 44

Birds deemed taken
44. For the purpose of section 42, a bird killed or taken by
an individual who is exercising a right referred to in section
21 and who is accompanied by an individual who is
not exercising such a right is deemed to be taken by the
individual who is not exercising that right.

https://mail.xplornet.ca/?_task=mail...hSXFDywJIKamzt

So basically if I am hunting with a native friend,WE can only shoot one white mans limit.I have been hunting with friends up the coast since the 80's.We had to observe the limit while hunting together.But that was a 2 man limitOne limit each..By himself he could do what he wanted.Now we have to share a limit.
Who's being penalized here and why.I could understand if the 2 of us had 50 birds and if stopped by the MNRF the non native claimed only a fraction of the count and i swore the rest were all taken by the other person.That wouldn't be right.But if everyone stayed within the federal limit,we are all following the rules.
I could go duck hunting with multiple non natives and shoot all their birds and claim only my limit.Whats the difference?It's the limit that we can shoot that I agree should be regulated,not WHO I hunt with.Thats just plain racism.
With this step the government is just re emphasizing the divide between native and non native hunters instead of coming up with ways to bring us closer.

OFAH,whats your stance on this?
Anything? It's not found anywhere on their site.This is one of those behind the scenes talks I mentioned in other threads between the OFAH and the MNRF.that doesn't help anyone.
Since this will affect us northerners rather than southerners I can see the OFAH sitting this one out,again.
Then they wonder why their popularity wanes the further north and Northwest you go.

TTT interested in hearing more

Another section which I heard about yesterday from a retired CO states that a bird(s) that are processed i.e. plucked ,breasted etc. and in the freezer do not count towards a possession limit. So apparently this means you can fill your freezer if you want. On a good note though a apprentice hunter hunting with a mentor can each have their own gun and fill their own limits. TC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trky chsr

Another section which I heard about yesterday from a retired CO states that a bird(s) that are processed i.e. plucked ,breasted etc. and in the freezer do not count towards a possession limit. So apparently this means you can fill your freezer if you want. On a good note though a apprentice hunter hunting with a mentor can each have their own gun and fill their own limits. TC

---

Any chance you can provide a link to this possession “section” ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duckslayer

Any chance you can provide a link to this possession “section” ?

---

I heard this at our Fish and Game club meeting the other day. When I get the minutes from the meeting I'll be able to post the link. I guess it's pretty lengthy, the original Act was drafted in 1917. TC

Here's the link to the proposals
http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2019/2.../reg3-eng.html

To the original poster - I think the key to this is in the wording. You can still each shoot a limit providing your friend doesn't exercise his Treaty Rights; ie - he stays within the limits laid out in the regs. You need to establish this ahead of time with your friends. It is a new rule designed to eliminate non natives from piling up birds with their native friends which has been know to happen in the past

Your statement:

I could go duck hunting with multiple non natives and shoot all their birds and claim only my limit. What's the difference?

Technically you can't do what you propose. Party hunting for waterfowl has never been legal. You shoot your own limit and that's it.

There are a lot of really good, long overdue, common sense changes to the Act being proposed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STUBBLE BUM

There are a lot of really good, long overdue, common sense changes to the Act being proposed.

---

Agreed. Nice to finally see some clarity in terms of swatting crippled birds from a moving boat.

-Nick

anyone got a link, the OP one does not work.

Good to see an end to wasting waterfowl meat....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duckslayer

Any chance you can provide a link to this possession “section” ?

---

http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/20.../reg3-eng.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trky chsr

http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/20.../reg3-eng.html

---

Thank you, defiantly some improvements in clarity in several sections of the act that I totally agree with and is long over due.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sprite

Agreed. Nice to finally see some clarity in terms of swatting crippled birds from a moving boat.

-Nick

---

FINALLY!! An answer to a strongly debated topic several times on this site. A few threads got down right nasty..............and most ended up locked...........some guys might owe some other guys an apology ...............lol

Ok does this now mean no eating birds at camp? If hunters are on a Multi day hunt and want to have a few duck or goose breasts in a meal, will we have to take them home first?

New concept of possession — concept of preservation introduced

The new proposed concept of possession is that once birds are preserved according to the criteria set out in the amended MBRs, they no longer count in an individual’s possession limit. This would encourage hunters to preserve birds for future use, thus avoiding waste. A bird would be considered preserved when it is

plucked and eviscerated (or the edible portions removed from the carcass), and then;
frozen, cooked, dried, canned or smoked, or when mounted for taxidermy.

Birds preserved during the day they were harvested would continue to count toward the daily bag limit of the hunter who harvested them. Partial processing of harvested birds may occur in the hunting areas. Birds may be eviscerated and plucked in any location, but the meat, along with the fully feathered head or wing, must be retained on the carcasses until they are later completely preserved.

************************************************** *********************************************
"The subsequent processes for preserving (freezing, making sausages, cooking, drying, canning or smoking) must occur in a residence or a non-mobile facility, and must not be performed in the hunting area."
************************************************** *********************************************

Harvested birds would continue to count in the possession limit until they are completely preserved. An unpreserved bird would no longer count toward the owner’s possession limit when the bird is gifted to someone and the gift is accepted by the new owner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duckslayer

Thank you, defiantly some improvements in clarity in several sections of the act that I totally agree with and is long over due.



FINALLY!! An answer to a strongly debated topic several times on this site. A few threads got down right nasty..............and most ended up locked...........some guys might owe some other guys an apology ...............lol

---

X2..............

I don't see anything but reasonable rules there. Good that some of the unclear parts of the legislation are cleared up - like retrieval of downed game. Good news for us waterfowlers...

Good read on a rainy day
Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

Ok does this now mean no eating birds at camp? If hunters are on a Multi day hunt and want to have a few duck or goose breasts in a meal, will we have to take them home first?

New concept of possession — concept of preservation introduced

The new proposed concept of possession is that once birds are preserved according to the criteria set out in the amended MBRs, they no longer count in an individual’s possession limit. This would encourage hunters to preserve birds for future use, thus avoiding waste. A bird would be considered preserved when it is

plucked and eviscerated (or the edible portions removed from the carcass), and then;
frozen, cooked, dried, canned or smoked, or when mounted for taxidermy.

Birds preserved during the day they were harvested would continue to count toward the daily bag limit of the hunter who harvested them. Partial processing of harvested birds may occur in the hunting areas. Birds may be eviscerated and plucked in any location, but the meat, along with the fully feathered head or wing, must be retained on the carcasses until they are later completely preserved.

************************************************** *********************************************
"The subsequent processes for preserving (freezing, making sausages, cooking, drying, canning or smoking) must occur in a residence or a non-mobile facility, and must not be performed in the hunting area."
************************************************** *********************************************

Harvested birds would continue to count in the possession limit until they are completely preserved. An unpreserved bird would no longer count toward the owner’s possession limit when the bird is gifted to someone and the gift is accepted by the new owner.

---

Eat away. Theres no reason why you can't eat birds, as long as you count them in your daily limit.

S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinker

Eat away. Theres no reason why you can't eat birds, as long as you count them in your daily limit.

S.

---

It's not about counting them in my limit.

It says that birds can not be processed for cooking in the hunting area or a Mobile facility. Camp's only 50 to 75 yards from the pond, am I still in the hunting area, does my camp count as NON-mobile or is it considered mobile?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

It's not about counting them in my limit.

It says that birds can not be processed for cooking in the hunting area or a Mobile facility. Camp's only 50 to 75 yards from the pond, am I still in the hunting area, does my camp count as NON-mobile or is it considered mobile?

---

Its saying you can't cook and keep shooting to fill a limit. Use your brain. Don't be so literal with the regs, Think of the intent of the law. Sheesh.

S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinker

Its saying you can't cook and keep shooting to fill a limit. Use your brain. Don't be so literal with the regs, Think of the intent of the law. Sheesh.

S.

---

It also says you can only process for cooking in a resident or NON-mobile facility. My campsite is mobile..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

It also says you can only process for cooking in a resident or NON-mobile facility. My campsite is mobile..

---

Listen man, You do what you want. I could not care less. I will do what I feel is right.

You are the same guy that argued with me about swatting cripples from a moving boat. Where did that get you? Seriously, how much clarity do you need to comprehend???

S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinker

Listen man, You do what you want. I could not care less. I will do what I feel is right.

You are the same guy that argued with me about swatting cripples from a moving boat. Where did that get you? Seriously, how much clarity do you need to comprehend???

S.

---

Don't change the subject.


As for clarity how about you define the two terms.

RESIDENCE.. .

and

NON-MOBILE FACILITY.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

Don't change the subject.


As for clarity how about you define the two terms.

RESIDENCE.. .

and

NON-MOBILE FACILITY.......

---

Dont tell me what to do, and figure it out yourself!!

S.

I can't help myself.

If you seriously think it would be against the law to eat your birds in your camp, you should maybe not be hunting at all. Honestly. Think about it. Use your brain. Try it. It works.

S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinker

Dont tell me what to do, and figure it out yourself!!

S.

---

They do not define a residence or non-mobile facility. If the interpretation of a residence is a "permanent" Domicile ( your house)only and not a temporary Domicile ( camp/cabin) then with the new revisions to the MBCA makes eating a duck a violation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

They do not define a residence or non-mobile facility. If the interpretation of a residence is a "permanent" Domicile ( your house)only and not a temporary Domicile ( camp/cabin) then with the new revisions to the MBCA makes eating a duck a violation.

---

Oh Oh! I guess we are in deep poo poo as we have eaten many ducks at the cabin where we also hunt moose , this cabin is not a permanent domicile, but it may be, as it is where we stay permanently while we are there ????

One year we had a C.O. stay with us , he also hunted ducks and enjoyed eating them, I wonder if he could lose his job over this ??? :scream::silly:

Boy this is getting confusing,:confused: , I thought the new wording was supposed to simplify things .????:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

Oh Oh! I guess we are in deep poo poo as we have eaten many ducks at the cabin where we also hunt moose , this cabin is not a permanent domicile, but it may be, as it is where we stay permanently while we are there ????

One year we had a C.O. stay with us , he also hunted ducks and enjoyed eating them, I wonder if he could lose his job over this ??? :scream::silly:

Boy this is getting confusing,:confused: , I thought the new wording was supposed to simplify things .????:)

---

Well they added the section on preserving needing to be done at a residence this year, along with the other changes and clarifications. Residence and Non-mobile facility are not defined, and MNRF can't give me an interpretation of the section .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

Well they added the section on preserving needing to be done at a residence this year, along with the other changes and clarifications. Residence and Non-mobile facility are not defined, and MNRF can't give me an interpretation of the section .

---

Does that mean that people living in mobile homes in trailer parks are not living in a residence, and that is not their home ??? , where then do they take their ducks and geese to preserve them???:confused:

I,m still confused!:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

Does that mean that people living in mobile homes in trailer parks are not living in a residence, and that is not their home ??? , where then do they take their ducks and geese to preserve them???:confused:

I,m still confused!:confused:

---

Alzheimers will do that to you Joe.....I mean Jaycee..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

Alzheimers will do that to you Joe.....I mean Jaycee..

---

:fish: again???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

They do not define a residence or non-mobile facility. If the interpretation of a residence is a "permanent" Domicile ( your house)only and not a temporary Domicile ( camp/cabin) then with the new revisions to the MBCA makes eating a duck a violation.

---

Yeah, and I'm sure the game warden will be waiting behind the next tree with his spotting scope just itching to nail every single person who does it too. Do you understand how rediculous you sound, even thinking that?

Ever seen a tinfoil hat? Take yours off. Theres a lot bigger things to be worried about than eating a duck you shot, in your camp.

S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinker

Yeah, and I'm sure the game warden will be waiting behind the next tree with his spotting scope just itching to nail every single person who does it too. Do you understand how rediculous you sound, even thinking that?

Ever seen a tinfoil hat? Take yours off. Theres a lot bigger things to be worried about than eating a duck you shot, in your camp.

S.

---

well s(t)inker, the question was originally about what MNRF would define a residence as, but since in your second reply you went off like a nut-bar I am taking great sport annoying you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Couliewalker

The feds are changing the way we hunt waterfowl.
Canada gazette part 1 volume 153 edition 22 section 44

Birds deemed taken
44. For the purpose of section 42, a bird killed or taken by
an individual who is exercising a right referred to in section
21 and who is accompanied by an individual who is
not exercising such a right is deemed to be taken by the
individual who is not exercising that right.

https://mail.xplornet.ca/?_task=mail...hSXFDywJIKamzt

So basically if I am hunting with a native friend,WE can only shoot one white mans limit.I have been hunting with friends up the coast since the 80's.We had to observe the limit while hunting together.But that was a 2 man limitOne limit each..By himself he could do what he wanted.Now we have to share a limit.
Who's being penalized here and why.I could understand if the 2 of us had 50 birds and if stopped by the MNRF the non native claimed only a fraction of the count and i swore the rest were all taken by the other person.That wouldn't be right.But if everyone stayed within the federal limit,we are all following the rules.
I could go duck hunting with multiple non natives and shoot all their birds and claim only my limit.Whats the difference?It's the limit that we can shoot that I agree should be regulated,not WHO I hunt with.Thats just plain racism.
With this step the government is just re emphasizing the divide between native and non native hunters instead of coming up with ways to bring us closer.

OFAH,whats your stance on this?
Anything? It's not found anywhere on their site.This is one of those behind the scenes talks I mentioned in other threads between the OFAH and the MNRF.that doesn't help anyone.
Since this will affect us northerners rather than southerners I can see the OFAH sitting this one out,again.“I could go duck hunting with multiple non natives and shoot all their birds and claim only my limit.Whats the difference?It's the limit that we can shoot that I agree should be regulated,not WHO I hunt with.Thats just plain racism.”
Then they wonder why their popularity wanes the further north and Northwest you go.

---

Hi Couliewalker,Your comment that I've underlined and raised would seem to suggest that you are now allow to party hunt migratory birds. Have they now changed the regulations to made it legal to do so? Before after you had shot your limit, you were not allowed to help some else fill theirs. I wonder if they’re likely to be doing the same thing when it comes to turkey hunting.


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

I believe it is well understood that under The M.B.C.A. you could never party hunt for waterfowl, and to my knowledge and checking with Peterborough , that is still unchanged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

It's not about counting them in my limit.

It says that birds can not be processed for cooking in the hunting area or a Mobile facility. Camp's only 50 to 75 yards from the pond, am I still in the hunting area, does my camp count as NON-mobile or is it considered mobile?

---

Your camp, tent, trailer, mobile home, cabin......is a residence.....the intent is to prevent hunters from cleaning their birds in their blind...and not count as your daily limit..
In other words, take your birds home to process them...whether you are staying in a trailer, tent, cabin...etc., makes no difference...it’s your residence...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinker

Yeah, and I'm sure the game warden will be waiting behind the next tree with his spotting scope just itching to nail every single person who does it too. Do you understand how rediculous you sound, even thinking that?

Ever seen a tinfoil hat? Take yours off. Theres a lot bigger things to be worried about than eating a duck you shot, in your camp.

S.

---

Ya got an email this morning. CO I talked to said as long as I am not sleeping in the blind it can be a residence. A few office people have asked him the same thing, because it was added but not defined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

well s(t)inker, the question was originally about what MNRF would define a residence as, but since in your second reply you went off like a nut-bar I am taking great sport annoying you.

---

IF you think that was me going off like a nut bar, you haven't seen anything yet. I have lots more than that!

you're just a troll with nothing better to do that's all. I'm sorry for you.

S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

Hi Couliewalker,Your comment that I've underlined and raised would seem to suggest that you are now allow to party hunt migratory birds. Have they now changed the regulations to made it legal to do so? Before after you had shot your limit, you were not allowed to help some else fill theirs. I wonder if they’re likely to be doing the same thing when it comes to turkey hunting.


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

---

No you can not party hunt for waterfowl and nothing has changed. To interpret that from a guys post on a forum and then assume it might reflect other species..........oh boy........got to love the internet!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

Ya got an email this morning. CO I talked to said as long as I am not sleeping in the blind it can be a residence. A few office people have asked him the same thing, because it was added but not defined.

---

As if you actually wasted someone at the ministry’s time with one of the most ridiculous miss interpretations of a regulation I think I’ve seen.............wow they walk amongst us and are allowed to breed............need a head shaking emoji..

anyone who who read the new clarified regs and couldn’t understand it maybe shouldn’t be hunting.



Go figure they bring out language to clarify some “muddy waters” which made most guys happy to finally shut some other guys up but those people still have to try and “muddy” the waters. It’s all there in plain English...........maybe that’s the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duckslayer

As if you actually wasted someone at the ministry’s time with one of the most ridiculous miss interpretations of a regulation I think I’ve seen.........

---

Not the main reason I was talking to the CO.. SINCE my wife and his wife work together, we chat about a few things. On the subject of new regulations, and how much fun it can be to get clarifications sometimes, I said that Residence and NON-Mobile Facility was not defined. He figure I was just looking in the wrong spot(Documents).

When I got an email from him about what to bring to the BBQ, he mentioned the only interpretation he found was in interoffice memos.

As for wasting his time, generally chatting over the kitchen table hardly seems like I was wasting his time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

Not the main reason I was talking to the CO.. SINCE my wife and his wife work together, we chat about a few things. On the subject of new regulations, and how much fun it can be to get clarifications sometimes, I said that Residence and NON-Mobile Facility was not defined. He figure I was just looking in the wrong spot(Documents).

When I got an email from him about what to bring to the BBQ, he mentioned the only interpretation he found was in interoffice memos.

As for wasting his time, generally chatting over the kitchen table hardly seems like I was wasting his time.

---

Again missing the whole point that they already clarified the issue but you seemed to have to try to find some way to keep the waters “muddy” no need for you to keep on arguing the issue. Like I said anyone who read the new CLARIFIED regs and didn’t comprehend what they said should most likely not be hunting!!!


If you supposedly know this C O then why would you argue the dispatching a cripple from a boat many times on here...........I’ve yet to meet a C O who interpreted it any other way and I ask everyone I’ve had contact with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duckslayer

If you supposedly know this C O then why would you argue the dispatching a cripple from a boat many times on here...........I’ve yet to meet a C O who interpreted it any other way and I ask everyone I’ve had contact with.

---

Show me were I argue against dispatching a cripple from a boat.

Likely I suggested being clear in one's actions, not saying you can not do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

Show me were I argue against dispatching a cripple from a boat.

Likely I suggested being clear in one's actions, not saying you can not do it.

---

Hahaha.........ok


Well at this point I’m breaking your line and going free............. hook up another spoon and keep trolling!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duckslayer

Well at this point I’m breaking your line and going free............. hook up another spoon and keep trolling!

---

HaHa....nicley done :thumbup: