Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 76

Thread: A blaze of glory: What legal hunter orange looks like

  1. #51
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox View Post
    400 sq inches above the waist, written out right there, all you have to do is have that and have it visible from all sides. You must also have a hat. It even states that a hunters vest generally meets this requirement. This is what is written in the regulations, I am not writing anything about what the law is, I am stating the regulations.

    Go out and measure your vest and make sure you can see orange from all sides, you do not need to be able to see 400 square inches, you just need to see orange from all sides.

    If you meet the requirements of the law then any charges are total BS and would be put in place without just cause.

    This reminds me of the BS of someone saying they were charged for not having proper hunter orange while on the ATV. You cannot hunt on an ATV so how can you be charged for not having proper hunter orange (helmet) while on the ATV.

    Maybe the sales of orange backpacks are down and the OFAH has one coming up for sale in the next catalog.
    Pretty good summary.

  2. # ADS
    Advertisement
    ADVERTISEMENT
     

  3. #52
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox View Post
    400 sq inches above the waist, written out right there, all you have to do is have that and have it visible from all sides. You must also have a hat. It even states that a hunters vest generally meets this requirement. This is what is written in the regulations, I am not writing anything about what the law is, I am stating the regulations.

    Go out and measure your vest and make sure you can see orange from all sides, you do not need to be able to see 400 square inches, you just need to see orange from all sides.

    If you meet the requirements of the law then any charges are total BS and would be put in place without just cause.

    This reminds me of the BS of someone saying they were charged for not having proper hunter orange while on the ATV. You cannot hunt on an ATV so how can you be charged for not having proper hunter orange (helmet) while on the ATV.

    Maybe the sales of orange backpacks are down and the OFAH has one coming up for sale in the next catalog.
    Finally! Here's a poster that gets it. It's a lot of angst and confusion for an item most of us may need to wear only one or two weeks out of the entire season,at least,in southern Ontario except if you're a licensed Black Bear hunter​,it must be worn (by regulation) every time you go out until the Bear season ends.

  4. #53
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox View Post
    400 sq inches above the waist, written out right there, all you have to do is have that and have it visible from all sides. You must also have a hat. It even states that a hunters vest generally meets this requirement. This is what is written in the regulations, I am not writing anything about what the law is, I am stating the regulations.

    Go out and measure your vest and make sure you can see orange from all sides, you do not need to be able to see 400 square inches, you just need to see orange from all sides.

    If you meet the requirements of the law then any charges are total BS and would be put in place without just cause.

    This reminds me of the BS of someone saying they were charged for not having proper hunter orange while on the ATV. You cannot hunt on an ATV so how can you be charged for not having proper hunter orange (helmet) while on the ATV.

    Maybe the sales of orange backpacks are down and the OFAH has one coming up for sale in the next catalog.
    Heres a wrinkle for you Fox.....where does it say in any regulation that you can't "hunt" (read the definition of hunting") from a bike ! What would be the difference in walking a trail, looking for game, or riding the same trail, looking for game, standing at a run, or sitting on your bike watching the run ? This is exactly why interpretation is best left to the authorities ! Some have in fact been charged as you posted.
    Last edited by rick_iles; August 27th, 2015 at 07:30 AM.

  5. #54
    Has too much time on their hands

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox View Post
    400 sq inches above the waist, written out right there, all you have to do is have that and have it visible from all sides. You must also have a hat. It even states that a hunters vest generally meets this requirement. This is what is written in the regulations, I am not writing anything about what the law is, I am stating the regulations.

    Go out and measure your vest and make sure you can see orange from all sides, you do not need to be able to see 400 square inches, you just need to see orange from all sides.

    If you meet the requirements of the law then any charges are total BS and would be put in place without just cause.

    This reminds me of the BS of someone saying they were charged for not having proper hunter orange while on the ATV. You cannot hunt on an ATV so how can you be charged for not having proper hunter orange (helmet) while on the ATV.

    Maybe the sales of orange backpacks are down and the OFAH has one coming up for sale in the next catalog.
    You could very well be right. Tell it to the judge.

    Myself, given the choice I'll play the odds and follow the advice of a published article that cites David Critchlow, Provincial Enforcement Specialist, as a source.

    There are posters in this thread who have first-hand experience in the application and interpretation of law. We should heed their advice.
    Last edited by ninepointer; August 27th, 2015 at 08:23 PM.
    "What calm deer hunter's heart has not skipped a beat when the stillness of a cold November morning is broken by the echoes of hounds tonguing yonder?"

  6. #55
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rick_iles View Post
    Heres a wrinkle for you Fox.....where does it say in any regulation that you can't "hunt" (read the definition of hunting") from a bike ! What would be the difference in walking a trail, looking for game, or riding the same trail, looking for game, standing at a run, or sitting on your bike watching the run ? This is exactly why interpretation is best left to the authorities ! Some have in fact been charged as you posted.
    Page 30 of the regulations summary

    "Use of Vehicles, Boats or Aircraft (see Definitions, page 86) Aircraft, including drones and balloons, may not be used while hunting. Snowmobiles, vehicles or boats may not be used for chasing, pursuing, harassing, capturing, injuring or killing any wildlife.It is illegal to have a loaded firearm in or on, or discharge a firearm from, an aircraft, vehicle (including snowmobile and all-terrain vehicle) or motorboat or anything towed by the boat. An exception to this rule is that a person may obtain an authorization through the local ministry office if the person’s mobility is impaired and the person meets one of the following criteria:"

    You can use the vehicle to get to your location, you cannot legally hunt with it and you cannot have a loaded gun on it. If you drive it to your stand you need to get off the bike and load it to legally load it. If you can hunt with your helmet on then you better have an orange helmet cover but an orange helmet cover is not required to ride your atv during an open season, even if you are going to your hunting spot. This would be the same as having to wear your hunter orange to drive your car during an open season, you are not hunting you do not need hunter orange.

    I use full face helmets, try getting an anchor point properly with a full face, it is not going to happen, I cannot shoot properly with a helmet on, I take my bucket off, set it on the bike, then grab the gun, move away from the bike and load up ready to hunt.

    If they have been charged for hunting without hunter orange hat on when riding the atv then that CO needs to be chewed out, this seems to me like trying to fill a quota, who is going to go fight it.

  7. #56
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox View Post
    This is what is written in the regulations, I am not writing anything about what the law is, I am stating the regulations.
    The regulations summary is just a summary.

    Since the idea of interpretation seems foreign to so many people, let's consider what the regs summary actually says: "visible from all sides." What does "visible from all sides" mean? Ho much orange must be visible to meet this requirement? One square inch? One half square inch? Someone here will swear up and down that the literal interpretation is the law, that any amount of orange being visible meets the letter of the law and is therefore legal. Good luck with that in court....

    A CO in the field is going to use some discretion ... if you have a backpack covering part of your vest but there's still a lot of orange visible across your shoulders, he could let this pass. If the backpack substantially covers your back so that little orange is seen, he may decide otherwise.
    "The language of dogs and birds teaches you your own language."
    -- Jim Harrison (1937 - 2016)

  8. #57
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ninepointer View Post
    You cold very well be right. Tell it to the judge.

    Myself, given the choice I'll play the odds and follow the advice of a published article that cites David Critchlow, Provincial Enforcement Specialist, as a source.

    There are posters in this thread who have first-hand experience in the application and interpretation of law. We should heed their advice.
    Wait for a LEO to ask to see your guns and take them away for "illegal storage" with no idea of what legal storage is. LEOs can charge someone without it being something they can legally do.

    Remember trust everything in magazines and on the internet, if they say it is true it must be.

    I personally will go by what is in the regulations and fight like hell if I am every charged for abiding by the rules put in place and in writing.

  9. #58
    Has all the answers

    User Info Menu

    Default

    24. (1) A person shallnot use a vehicle for the purpose of killing, injuring, capturing, harassing,pursuing or chasing wildlife.
    “hunting” includes,
    (a) lying in wait for, searching for, beingon the trail of, pursuing, chasing or shooting at wildlife, whether or not thewildlife is killed, injured, captured or harassed, or
    (b) capturing or harassing wildlife,
    except that “hunting” does not include,
    (c) trapping, or
    (d) lying in wait for, searching for, beingon the trail of or pursuing wildlife for a purpose other than attempting tokill, injure, capture or harass it, unless the wildlife is killed, injured,captured or harassed as a result,
    and “hunt” and “hunter” have correspondingmeanings; (“chasse”, “chasser”, “chasseur”)
    “vehicle” means any kind of vehicle that isdriven, propelled or drawn on land or ice by any kind of power, includingmuscular power, and includes the rolling stock of a railway; (“véhicule”)


    Above is the law that appears to apply from the FWCA. My interpretation based on the definition of "hunt" would be that if you are scouting and the intention is to not kill an animal "while" scouting" you'd be alright. You can't "hunt" from a vehicle so you shouldn't have to wear hunter orange. I suppose if you had a loaded firearm on the vehicle while driving it, (which would be illegal) you could be deemed to be hunting at the time and be required to wear hunter orange depending on the seasons and possibly charged for both.

    I heard of people charged for not having orange on while driving in their trucks which I think would be an unfair charge to be laid.

  10. #59
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox View Post
    Page 30 of the regulations summary

    "Use of Vehicles, Boats or Aircraft (see Definitions, page 86) Aircraft, including drones and balloons, may not be used while hunting. Snowmobiles, vehicles or boats may not be used for chasing, pursuing, harassing, capturing, injuring or killing any wildlife.It is illegal to have a loaded firearm in or on, or discharge a firearm from, an aircraft, vehicle (including snowmobile and all-terrain vehicle) or motorboat or anything towed by the boat. An exception to this rule is that a person may obtain an authorization through the local ministry office if the person’s mobility is impaired and the person meets one of the following criteria:"

    You can use the vehicle to get to your location, you cannot legally hunt with it and you cannot have a loaded gun on it. If you drive it to your stand you need to get off the bike and load it to legally load it. If you can hunt with your helmet on then you better have an orange helmet cover but an orange helmet cover is not required to ride your atv during an open season, even if you are going to your hunting spot. This would be the same as having to wear your hunter orange to drive your car during an open season, you are not hunting you do not need hunter orange.

    I use full face helmets, try getting an anchor point properly with a full face, it is not going to happen, I cannot shoot properly with a helmet on, I take my bucket off, set it on the bike, then grab the gun, move away from the bike and load up ready to hunt.

    If they have been charged for hunting without hunter orange hat on when riding the atv then that CO needs to be chewed out, this seems to me like trying to fill a quota, who is going to go fight it.
    You are hung up on the Summary, it means squat ! Where in the actual legislation does it say I can't "hunt" from a vehicle. If I'm cruising logging roads looking for a moose in a cutover, I'm hunting, given the definition of "hunting".....guys "road hunt" all the time ! I can't shoot from or have a loaded firearm in or on a vehicle. I can't use a vehicle to chase, kill or harass, but I sure can "hunt" from a vehicle...
    Dont forget the presumption in Sec 109.....Again, more than one Section, definition and presumption is considered by the LEO, in making the decision to charge or not.
    Last edited by rick_iles; August 27th, 2015 at 08:15 AM.

  11. #60
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redd foxx View Post


    Above is the law that appears to apply from the FWCA. My interpretation based on the definition of "hunt" would be that if you are scouting and the intention is to not kill an animal "while" scouting" you'd be alright. You can't "hunt" from a vehicle so you shouldn't have to wear hunter orange. I suppose if you had a loaded firearm on the vehicle while driving it, (which would be illegal) you could be deemed to be hunting at the time and be required to wear hunter orange depending on the seasons and possibly charged for both.

    I heard of people charged for not having orange on while driving in their trucks which I think would be an unfair charge to be laid.
    If you are caught with a loaded firearm in or on a vehicle, Hunter orange regulations would be the least of your worries !

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

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
  •