Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 88

Thread: game warden says no kids

  1. #31
    Just starting out

    User Info Menu

    Default

    I guess i find it hard to take one child who has taken the hunter apprenticeship and have to tell the other who is only 2 years away from being eligible that they cant sit in the stand with me. Not saying that the definition is silly, what i ment is that its silly you cant take kids to sit with you.
    Last edited by tenpoint guy; November 5th, 2014 at 07:13 PM.

  2. # ADS
    Advertisement
    ADVERTISEMENT
     

  3. #32
    Has all the answers

    User Info Menu

    Default

    If the kid has no intention to kill, or participate in a hunt what's the problem? Either something is missing in this story or the C.O. is way out of line, and want's to climb the ladder. When it comes to a charge , it all boils down to discretion of the Officer. And it will be up to you to fight it in court, but a lot of C.O.s hope you don't show up in court after being charged.

  4. #33
    Just starting out

    User Info Menu

    Default

    My interpretation of the definition is that sitting in a stand with me is " lying in wait".

  5. #34
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    According to the Enforcement Specialist David Critchlow, you can take your kids providing they take no active part in the hunt. That would include pointing out game for you. But, once game has been killed, they can assist in recovery......can't get much better than that. This was in response to the question in Ask a CO, article in OOD.
    Last edited by rick_iles; November 5th, 2014 at 08:41 PM.

  6. #35
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tenpoint guy View Post
    My interpretation of the definition is that sitting in a stand with me is " lying in wait".
    Glad that isn't my take on it....because then this also would be illegal

    "Everything is easy when you know how"
    "Meat is not grown in stores"

  7. #36
    Just starting out

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tenpoint guy View Post
    I guess i find it hard to take one child who has taken the hunter apprenticeship and have to tell the other who is only 2 years away from being eligible that they cant sit in the stand with me. Not saying that the definition is silly, what i ment is that its silly you cant take kids to sit with you.
    IMO it's your natural right to bring your children along and teach them how to hunt. There should be zero regulation of this beyond basic safety. Silly is too mild a word to describe it.

  8. #37
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    I agree with fratri and if they want to charge me for taking my kid's go for it.

    However I suspect we are not hearing the whole story.



    He looks pretty happy.
    just teach them to clean the bird's and then all you have to do is shoot the geese.


    Quote Originally Posted by fratri View Post
    Glad that isn't my take on it....because then this also would be illegal

    "This is about unenforceable registration of weapons that violates the rights of people to own firearms."—Premier Ralph Klein (Alberta)Calgary Herald, 1998 October 9 (November 1, 1942 – March 29, 2013)

  9. #38
    Moose on the Brain

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tenpoint guy View Post
    Here is the definition of hunting according to the reg book.

    Includes lying in wait, serching for, being on the trail of, pursuing, chasing or shooting at wildlife, weather or not the wildlife is killed, injured, captured or harassed. You need a hunting licence to do any of these things except where the fish and wildlife conservation act 1997 states otherwise.

    I know its a silly rule, i remember being out with my dad when i was just 6 or 7.
    I believe you are missing the second part of the definition.

    hunting” includes,
    (a) lying in wait for, searching for, being on the trail of, pursuing, chasing or shooting at wildlife, whether or not the wildlife is killed, injured, captured or harassed, or
    (b) capturing or harassing wildlife,
    except that “hunting” does not include,
    (c) trapping, or
    (d) lying in wait for, searching for, being on the trail of or pursuing wildlife for a purpose other than attempting to kill, injure, capture or harass it, unless the wildlife is killed, injured, captured or harassed as a result,

    In essence as the purpose for the kid (or any other unlicensed individual observer) is to observe the hunt...and not to kill, injure, capture or harass it...and being that the kid's action of strictly observation would not result in the wildlife being killed, injured, captured or harassed...then no observing Dad hunt is not hunting...in fact if on the stand (or in a blind) it probably in most cases makes Dad's hunt less successful in terms of killing game.

    As a few have said...has to be more to the story.

  10. #39
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Why has ontdon not come on the thread to answer some of these questions? Only 44 post in 4 years. Maybe he was just fishing?

  11. #40
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Nicely said Sawbill, and thank you FW, you beat me to it.

    I am sometimes utterly surprised how often this topic comes up. I'm almost as surprised by how often when referring (rightfully) to the letter of the law people don't include the full definition. It' critical. Im actually surprised the MNR only quotes the first half.

    The letter of the law is quite clear, it's also not "silly". As worded it makes clear and it gives COs the ability to apply the spirit or not depending on what they witness/see (devil details). Personally, I don't think it could be worded any better. The critical second half, enables COs to charge non hunters in non hunting scenarios with infractions. Aka some douchbag using a rabbit as a football for field goals, aka some douchebag doing A to Z. Imo don't be so paranoid that they are "out to get us"…..

    Is it "possible" a child/observer might get charged?
    Yes, and why not. (devil details)…more importantly is gives COs the ability to charge non hunters who don't know much about game, or animals, their behaviors and so much more, or care much about game, animals, conservation…….

    Quote Originally Posted by sawbill View Post
    What's silly about it? Its an inclusive definition that became necessary because some borderline hunters just had to push the boundaries of whats fair chase and whats not fair chase.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fishy Wishy View Post
    I believe you are missing the second part of the definition.

    hunting” includes,
    (a) lying in wait for, searching for, being on the trail of, pursuing, chasing or shooting at wildlife, whether or not the wildlife is killed, injured, captured or harassed, or
    (b) capturing or harassing wildlife,
    except that “hunting” does not include,
    (c) trapping, or
    (d) lying in wait for, searching for, being on the trail of or pursuing wildlife for a purpose other than attempting to kill, injure, capture or harass it, unless the wildlife is killed, injured, captured or harassed as a result,

    In essence as the purpose for the kid (or any other unlicensed individual observer) is to observe the hunt...and not to kill, injure, capture or harass it...and being that the kid's action of strictly observation would not result in the wildlife being killed, injured, captured or harassed...then no observing Dad hunt is not hunting...in fact if on the stand (or in a blind) it probably in most cases makes Dad's hunt less successful in terms of killing game.

    As a few have said...has to be more to the story.
    In this/these "specific" set of devil details?

    Is pushing deer not harassing them?
    Yes it is. We push (harass) them, so that we can shoot and kill them.

    The difference between "observing" and "aiding"?
    Thats for a CO to decide.

    Here's a "what if" scenario.
    You go out with your young son with your rifle, take a watch. Suddenly around 9:30am an activist anti and some friends show up and start making all kinds of racket….interferring with the hunt, bumping deer, scattering them to the 9 acres from the woodlot. Who knows what may/may not happen…...

    Anyone think the letter of the law is "silly"?
    Am pretty sure there have been threads about "non hunters" ruining hunts. Harassing game….
    Last edited by JBen; November 6th, 2014 at 07:35 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •