Migratory birds for training

[Dythbringer]

Re. the above , I think that you will find this to be " A Club Rule " to ease every ones mind, it prevents outsiders , people that do not know from complaining that " hey you are using migratory birds to train with " , also there would be a possibility of some unethical hunters donating their unwanted birds to the club and going out and shoot some more because they can claim the "we do not have any in our possession " so we can go and shoot some . Or those that would cull their birds , donating well shot up birds or the hens .
I think you can read between the lines and see what I am getting at , the MVRTC is just trying to prevent any possible problems by purchasing their birds for training purposes and the hunt tests as do most other clubs .

Burlygirl straightened me out on that. I am fine with it being a club rule (and it does make sense) but it does state false info. Thanks jaycee.

[krakadawn]

While I appreciate what and how Jaycee has explained cause goodness knows we get flack when it's not deserved for dogs and hunting etc.......But I also believe we need to stand tall about what we are doing. Nothing illegal here and it has been known for decades that good retrievers conserve game.

For many years I was part of a presentation during waterfowl week at a provincial park. We did not shy away from using birds for the retriever demonstration and often took the opportunity to discuss with members of the crowd. Just like the Heritage laws affirmed our right to hunt, we should never run and hide or sugar coat the message especially when it is completely legal.

A law abiding person should never fear being upfront with what you do.

[Labber]

While I appreciate what and how Jaycee has explained cause goodness knows we get flack when it's not deserved for dogs and hunting etc.......But I also believe we need to stand tall about what we are doing. Nothing illegal here and it has been known for decades that good retrievers conserve game.

For many years I was part of a presentation during waterfowl week at a provincial park. We did not shy away from using birds for the retriever demonstration and often took the opportunity to discuss with members of the crowd. Just like the Heritage laws affirmed our right to hunt, we should never run and hide or sugar coat the message especially when it is completely legal.

A law abiding person should never fear being upfront with what you do.

exactly!!

[BurlyGirl]

Oh for....

No one is hiding. I made the mistake of hazarding a guess as to why the rule had been left as is or even overlooked. I said that it wasn't my rule and that it was there when I arrived, and guessed that it kept the urbanites from assuming we shot birds just to throw them around and play with their lifeless bodies. Never knew it'd be a case of people assuming that I was a law-abiding person hiding what I was doing, or by extension, that the club was law abiding and yet hiding what we were doing. The written rule will get looked at.

[krakadawn]

Alana,
My comment was in response to Jaycee who was quite accurate in my mind about the issue. Certainly no malice toward you but I will not back up on standing our ground in general...in general.

[BurlyGirl]

Krakadawn, as long as there is no malice toward me, we're good. As for your response directed at Jaycee, it appears he was making an observation on how the rule could have come to fruition (and he also wouldn't have known Dyth and I had already spoken, so he was probably trying to provide an explanation to Dythbringer in a timely fashion). Seeing as how MVRTC sits in the middle of a conservation area that is close to being swallowed by city and is constantly making more and more changes toward it being a 'park' and not a conservation area in the traditional sense of the term, I think it's a good guess. We as a club take many measures to ensure we have an amicable relationship with the park, its employees and the people who frequent the park grounds. (Burly has made the trek for PR purposes on more than one occasion, and that little dog has won over many a surly spectator). Purely a guess on my part, but the rule could have been written with the park's rules in mind, and it may be 'illegal' in a park sense, not a law and order sense. As stated, it'll get looked at if we want to call into question the semantics of it all. I never asked you to back up, but I did need to make it clear that no one was hiding and I feel like this is making Rule 12 a mountain when it's probably a mole hill.

As always, if you want to know the real life legalities of something, always go straight to the source. Concerning that, thank you Jim for copy and pasting the information concerning the facts/laws and the Migratory Bird Convention Act back in post #5 on this thread. I hope the Original Poster read that answer, as it covered their question =)

[Labber]

Revisiting this subject, Clubs can save themselves a pile of money not having to buy mallards if their members are able to help out.

The possession limit for clubs is 200 birds, not 250.
POSSESSION

• 10. (1) No person shall have in his possession in a province or any area within a province on the first day of the open season set out in Schedule I for that province or area, carcasses of migratory birds of any species in excess of the number specified as the daily bag limit in Schedule I for that species in that province or that area.
• (2) No person shall have in his possession in any province at any time, carcasses of migratory birds of any species in excess of the number specified as the possession limit in Schedule I for that species in that province unless that person has
  
  • (a) an export permit certifying that those carcasses were lawfully taken in another province, or
  • (b) a valid licence for hunting migratory birds issued by another province,
  
  and the number of carcasses does not exceed the possession limit for that species in the province that issued the export permit or licence, as the case may be.
• (3) No person shall have in his possession in any province a carcass of a migratory game bird belonging to or taken by another person unless the carcass has attached to it a tag that is signed by the holder of the migratory game bird hunting permit under which the bird was taken and that indicates
  
  • (a) the name and address of the owner;
  • (b) the number of the migratory game bird hunting permit under which the bird was taken; and
  • (c) the date the bird was taken.
  
  
• (4) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), a corporation that trains dogs as retrievers may, for the purpose of that training, have in its possession not more than 200 carcasses of migratory game birds.
• (4.1) Subsection (3) does not apply to a corporation referred to in subsection (4).
• (5) Subsection (2) does not apply to a person acting under the authority of a permit issued pursuant to section 25 or 26.

• SOR/79-544, s. 4;
• SOR/82-703, s. 4;
• SOR/99-393, s. 1;
• SOR/2000-331, s. 3.

[3 black dogs]

Labber is right but you must also keep on record the migratory stamp # that the birds were harvested under along with the hunters name and dates the birds were taken on as proof the birds were legaly harvested. In tbe event the mnr pay you a visit. When we held the 2011 national we used shot birds for the first 100 birds saved the club a 1000 bucks. For alot of our trials we buy our birds from Amos. If we have a good year we will put some away for next year the freezer is empty now.

[Labber]

but you must also keep on record the migratory stamp # that the birds were harvested under along with the hunters name and dates the birds were taken on as proof the birds were legaly harvested. In tbe event the mnr pay you a visit.

Actually, Chris

• (4.1) Subsection (3) does not apply to a corporation referred to in subsection (4).

Means that Retriever Clubs are exempt from the demands of:

(3) No person shall have in his possession in any province a carcass of a migratory game bird belonging to or taken by another person unless the carcass has attached to it a tag that is signed by the holder of the migratory game bird hunting permit under which the bird was taken and that indicates

• (a) the name and address of the owner;
• (b) the number of the migratory game bird hunting permit under which the bird was taken; and
• (c) the date the bird was taken.

However, not just anybody can claim to be part of a retriever club and have more birds than their stamp provides for.
The club president should be signing a letter to the club game steward identifying him as that, and documentation such as last years trial catalogue should be present as proof of this legal waterfowl possession purpose.

[krakadawn]

Scott, I've not seen any reference to catalogues etc to support use. We do use club letter head and a note from the club Secretary.

On another note the Act is under review and questionaires were available to clubs. Of special interest was the section on wastage....what that looks likes. This would hopefully clarify breasting birds and retaining for training.