Hunting definition

[Gun Dog]

As opposed to derailing the thread on using a drone for hunting I thought I would start a new one.

The regulations in BC define hunting as:

Hunt & Hunting - includes shooting at, attracting, searching for, chasing, pursuing, following after or on the trail of, stalking, or lying in wait for wildlife or attempting to do any of those things, whether or not the wildlife is then or subsequently wounded, killed or captured: (a) with intention to capture the wildlife, or (b) while in possession of a firearm or other weapon.

I would argue that this definition does not include recovering killed wildlife. There would be an issue if the wildlife was injured instead of dead but that's the same kind of problem as a wounded animal scampering across an MU boundary into an area where it's "safe". Then what?

Even though recovery/gutting/cleaning is part of the hunting experience it is post-hunting.

[HarryToolips]

You would have to prove that you've only used the drone for retrieving the animal, which would not be an easy task...

[fishhunt]

I agree with Gun Dog. After you've hit it, you're not hunting, you're retrieving. In fact, here's a scenario...You shot a moose 5 minutes before legal hunting time ended. He's in a cut next to a forest. He falls down, you start to walk toward him from 200 yards out. At 100 yards out, he gets up and starts to limp/stumble slowly into the forest. You check your watch, and it's been 6 minutes, since you shot, so hunting time is officially over 1 minute ago. So you decide to turn around and go back to camp to have some beers. As you turn around a CO is standing behind you. He asks where you're going. You say back to camp to have a few beers as hunting time is over. You think the CO is going to say, good work, you're following the law? More likely he'll say, hey buddy, what are you thinking, you better go get that moose.

[Ghilliesuit]

The Synopsis says, " ...subsequently wounded... " that ends your "...hunting...", after that, you are tracking your kill (you have a responsibly to tag it as SOON AS POSSIBLE) or whatever. It could entail contacting the owner of the adjacent property before entering, getting help searching, lights, recovery of "remove from the carcass the edible portions " etc.

[caddisguy]

The Synopsis says, " ...subsequently wounded... " that ends your "...hunting...", after that, you are tracking your kill (you have a responsibly to tag it as SOON AS POSSIBLE) or whatever. It could entail contacting the owner of the adjacent property before entering, getting help searching, lights, recovery of "remove from the carcass the edible portions " etc.

"Hunt & Hunting - includes shooting at, attracting, searching for, chasing, pursuing, following after or on the trail of, stalking, or lying in wait for wildlife or attempting to do any of those things, whether or not the wildlife is then or subsequently wounded, killed or captured: (a) with intention to capture the wildlife, or (b) while in possession of a firearm or other weapon."

From a legal perspective, all that says it that if you are "searching for an animal" (alive, dead, wounded, etc is not specified) that it doesn't matter whether or not you even find/kill/wound said animal that you are still hunting. As it is unspecified, looking for an animal (alive, wounded, dead) would still be hunting. And technically it would be illegal to do so after legal hunting hours and/or with the aid of a light.

So if you are looking for an animal (alive, dead, wounded - again it does not specify) it does fall under the definition of hunting and the scenario would be against the letter of the law.

The problem is when laws are written, they are vague, general and just not well thought out. There is zero intention (spirit of the law) to make tracking/finding a wounded animal after dark illegal, but such scenarios are not considered when writing the law and even when realized later, there is no appetite or motive to go back and fix the mistakes.

Same thing when they made it law to "carry all issued tags", not considering a hunter might order a cougar tag online that is considered "issued" immediately and even though they might not receive it for 3 weeks, that it would prohibit them from hunting deer or grouse for that 3 weeks. The letter of the law is clear on that--it would be illegal to hunt anything at all between the time you order any tag and when you receive it--but the ministry is not interested in clarifying intent of the law or fixing the language either. They did not intend to create that legal quagmire, and I doubt anyone would ever be fined, but they have no interest in going back to fix language to alleviate hunters of legal dilemmas. I do think our current government prefers it that way. At least our previous government was eager to clarify intent of the law with written email statements you could print out and keep... this one, not so much.

As others have said, it is highly unlikely anyone would ever be fined (let alone warned or bothered in any way) for doing so. If there was ever a case of this happening, I am certain it would be well publicized on hunting forums. If anything, from the CO's I have met, they would be more likely to help you find your elk (in the situation OP described) than anything A "put-down" shot after legal light I think would be a different story.

[tracker]

As opposed to derailing the thread on using a drone for hunting I thought I would start a new one.

The regulations in BC define hunting as:

Hunt & Hunting - includes shooting at, attracting, searching for, chasing, pursuing, following after or on the trail of, stalking, or lying in wait for wildlife or attempting to do any of those things, whether or not the wildlife is then or subsequently wounded, killed or captured: (a) with intention to capture the wildlife, or (b) while in possession of a firearm or other weapon.

So how about this hypothetical scenario:

You shoot an elk of a lifetime with a bow minutes before the legal close of hunting in the evening, it's early season, the temperature is hot and the elk takes off. Often a bow hunter will wait an hour for the animal to die. If you waited to search for the animal until the next morning you risk losing the entire animal because of the heat. So are you breaking the law (hunting at night) if you search for the animal since you would be technically 'hunting' by 'searching for' the animal 'with intention to capture the wildlife'?

To me the definition of Hunt & Hunting is way too broad from the definition that you'd find in a dictionary. What do you think?

with just a ordinary drone you still will not find that elk in the bush. if you ever flown one you will know what I mean.

[boxhitch]

The problem is when laws are written, they are vague, general and just not well thought out. There is zero intention (spirit of the law) to make tracking/finding a wounded animal after dark illegal, but such scenarios are not considered when writing the law and even when realized later, there is no appetite or motive to go back and fix the mistakes.

On purpose and with intent to be umbrella type rules, leaving room for adaptation. This way one rule can be used in varied situations. It is thought the regs are too complicated now for many to grasp, can you imagine if all of the whatifs were laid out on paper, what a nightmare. COs make a judgement, courts determine the outcome

[rocksteady]

CO's enforce legislation, judges interpret legislation and make ruling.. Lots of times it is not in the favor of the LEO, in hypothetical situations like stated above.


Judge: Tell me why you gave him a ticket for hunting in the dark.
CO: Cause he had (or maybe not) a weapon and was searching for a lost animal.
Judge: So he was trying to find an animal that he had legally shot and potentially wounded, just a few hours earlier?
CO: Yes, your honor.
Judge: So , do you think he was just after the one animal to recover? Or do you think he would have shot any animal he found in the dark?
CO: Assume just the wounded one.
Judge: So if there is no threat to him killing any other animals that night, he was just trying to recover a wounded animal, as he is legally obligated to do under the regs? But by ticketing him, do you think he will ever try to recover an animal if such a situation ever arises again? Which would be the waste of an animal.
CO: I am not sure.
Judge: Benefit of the doubt goes to the hunter. With the exception of spotlighting, hunters in this province are restricted to daylight hours. Hunting in the dark, even with a headlamp would be very unproductive..


Once the Judge gives his verdict, it is precedent setting, and hopefully all of the CO's get the "memo" about how the hunting at night regulation is interpreted in a court of law.

[Bugle M In]

When i doubt, just make a call to the appropriate authorities to get am answer.
IMO, don't leave it up to personal interpretation.

[whitlers]

Recovering game in the dark happens all the time. I see no issue with it. We all know the first and last hours of the day are the 'witching hours'. If you turn around and head back to the truck before last light then you are wasting valuable time IMO.