A blaze of glory: What legal hunter orange looks like

[MikePal]

Has anyone ever heard of someone being convicted of not wearing enough Hunter Orange ???

With such loose interpretations of interpretations, I'm sure any dime store lawyer would have the charges thrown out.

[werner.reiche]

I've heard of convictions for no orange or no orange hats.
I've heard of warnings for camo orange, but no ticket.

But if you have a sold orange vest and solid orange hat of some sort, the COs seem to acknowledge your attempt at compliance and leave it at that...

[bushman]

In the end it all comes down to the C.O. Some of them actually like there jobs and are fair and respected! Some of them not so much!!!

Case in point.
A group of coyote hunters I know had found a coyote track and proceeded to put their start dogs on it. One of their sons ,14 years old wanted to put the dogs on the track. So he walked the 2 dogs a short way into the woods, released them, waited a bit until they were gone ,then returned to the road.

A C.O. drives up as the young lad exits the woods with the dog leash over his shoulders. C.O then checks all their licences. The 14 year old hasn't gotten his license yet,waiting until he is 15.

Guess what happens next? C.O. Charges him for hunting without a license because he put the dogs on the track!!

Technically,I guess you could say he did attempt to hunt or chase or pursue game. But in my eyes it was a bs charge and totally unnecessary. Hence the discretion and interpretation of so said laws being discussed here.

[rick_iles]

Yes, technically he was participating in the hunt. Unlawful...yes, a BS charge, quite likely ! A stern education lecture would likely sufficed, but we were not there. Someone may have flunked the attitude test !

[werner.reiche]

In the end it all comes down to the C.O. Some of them actually like there jobs and are fair and respected! Some of them not so much!!!

Case in point.
A group of coyote hunters I know had found a coyote track and proceeded to put their start dogs on it. One of their sons ,14 years old wanted to put the dogs on the track. So he walked the 2 dogs a short way into the woods, released them, waited a bit until they were gone ,then returned to the road.

A C.O. drives up as the young lad exits the woods with the dog leash over his shoulders. C.O then checks all their licences. The 14 year old hasn't gotten his license yet,waiting until he is 15.

Guess what happens next? C.O. Charges him for hunting without a license because he put the dogs on the track!!

Technically,I guess you could say he did attempt to hunt or chase or pursue game. But in my eyes it was a bs charge and totally unnecessary. Hence the discretion and interpretation of so said laws being discussed here.

This is the sort of crap we get into when we start over-interpretation of the fwca. That people accompanying hunters and assisting marginally in the hunt are considered to be hunting is something relatively new, and its total BS. If you're not carrying a gun/bow, you shouldn't need a license. I think the MNRF has seen some of the folly in this BS and now dog handlers for tracking wounded animals are now exempt.

[Trilynx]

The attitude test often affecting the officers reaction

[ninepointer]

I've heard of convictions for no orange or no orange hats.
I've heard of warnings for camo orange, but no ticket.

But if you have a sold orange vest and solid orange hat of some sort, the COs seem to acknowledge your attempt at compliance and leave it at that...

Same here. Insufficient orange strikes me as a possible "pile on" charge in a situation where the CO has laid other more serious charges.

Four years ago I was checked by a friendly CO who recommended that I buy myself a new orange vest due to its colour. The vest I was wearing was old but not faded at all. However, it was a redder type of blaze orange which in the CO's opinion did not meet Ontario's hunter orange standard. He explained how proper hunter orange will still stand out in dim light (I was coming out of the bush, gun encased, after legal time), whereas at first he thought I was not wearing any vest at all because he could not see any orange while he watched me through his binoculars (yes, occasionally there is a CO in the bushes with binoculars).

Was that individual CO's opinion so correct that it would stand up to a challenge in court? I dunno and I don't care. I bought myself a new vest and it was no big hardship for me.

[ninepointer]

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

My point exactly: Legal opinions by Fox.

[MikePal]

But if you have a sold orange vest and solid orange hat of some sort, the COs seem to acknowledge your attempt at compliance and leave it at that...

That would, logically, be the way a judge would look at it too....

[DGearyFTE]

My point exactly: Legal opinions by Fox.

Gee, I thought if it was in colour it had to be true. Just like at the Check Out in the grocery store. I know that the tabloids that are black and white are all lies. The colour ones have to be true...