Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 76

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

  1. #61
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    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.
    Arte et marte (By Skill and by Fighting)...The RCEME motto

  2. # ADS
    Advertisement
    ADVERTISEMENT
     

  3. #62
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    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...

  4. #63
    Loyal Member

    User Info Menu

    Default

    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.

  5. #64
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    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 !

  6. #65
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushman View Post
    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.

  7. #66
    Getting the hang of it

    User Info Menu

    Default

    The attitude test often affecting the officers reaction
    The fishing was good; it was the catching that was bad.

  8. #67
    Has too much time on their hands

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by werner.reiche View Post
    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.
    "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?"

  9. #68
    Has too much time on their hands

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox View Post
    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.
    "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?"

  10. #69
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by werner.reiche View Post
    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....
    Last edited by MikePal; August 27th, 2015 at 10:13 AM.
    Arte et marte (By Skill and by Fighting)...The RCEME motto

  11. #70
    Elite Member

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ninepointer View Post
    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...
    There is room for all God's creatures - right next to the mashed potatoes!

Page 7 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
  •