There's no way bringing an unlicensed companion on a hunt can be a problem, unless you buy him dinner on the way home and he's now an unlicensed guide
There's no way bringing an unlicensed companion on a hunt can be a problem, unless you buy him dinner on the way home and he's now an unlicensed guide
Taking devil's advocacy just a little too far?
Awsome. Some would say lawbreaker but their wrong! This is a great thing to do as it encourages people to start hunting. Co's want to increase hunter numbers as well and this is a great way to do it, the ones I've talked to are very supportive of exposing people to hunting this way.
I could not find where this is in the hunting regs.
Would you please post it here for me. Thanks.
Then I will self-report myself to the RAPP Line as I have had non hunters accompany me on hunts.
All this time I thought I was being nice and exposing non hunters to a activity I enjoy and allowing them to be "in the bush" instead of sitting in front of the TV. Bad me...bad, bad, bad.
This post is just me being facetious.
fa·ce·tious
fəˈsēSHəs/
adjective
adjective: facetious
1.
treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.
synonyms: flippant, flip, glib, frivolous, tongue-in-cheek, ironic, sardonic, joking, jokey, jocular, playful, sportive, teasing, mischievous; Morewitty, amusing, funny, droll, comic, comical, lighthearted, jocose
"unfortunately, they took my facetious remarks seriously"
antonyms: serious
if people of color do it, it's "affirmative action" "civil rights", etc, etc. If a bunch of white folks do it....its "racist" and "hate speech" quote Willyqbc
Seems like you would be fine. I have been out hunting with people before I had my core. One time we were stopped by a CO and we had two guns, one long range rifle and one shotgun and he said we were ok I just couldn't be using either of them. Just to muddy the waters a bit here... But what about schedule C critters which you do not need a licence to hunt?
what?? why would they bother making a new class of licence the CORE is such an easy test and you can easily pass with challenging it i have a couple friends with very minimal outdoor expiriance and they never read the book and they passed and they really arent the brightest either haha and it only take like a week to come in i dont see the point in a special trial licence
For those of you who think this no big deal, let's look at it from another angle.
Let's say a licenced hunter brings 12 unlicensed friends out to the bush to "share" the experience. They divide up into groups and use radios to keep in contact. The groups of unlicenced people go in search of game, reporting what they see to the guy with the tag(s). The end result is a dead animal.
Does this activity increase the licenced hunter's chances of success in harvesting an animal? Does this seem "right"?
What intentions do these unlicenced people have? Certainly not to shoot the animal themselves, but certainly they intend for their actions to result in a dead game animal. No?
While they are "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:" ... what is their intention? To just look at the animal? No. Their intention is to report this information to the licensed individual so he can attempt to kill the animal. Indirectly, they intend for that animal to be captured or killed, despite not having the means to do so. That's why it is stated in the regs as:
(a) with intention to capture the wildlife, or
(b) while in possession of a firearm or other
weapon
Granted, this is an extreme example. However, the same conclusions should be reached if it is just a licenced guy and his best bud out for a drive or hike. The same intentions are there.
Join a fish and game club, become a member of the BCWF, educate yourself on the process of how these proposals come to fruition. You can contribute a lot more through the proper channels. By doing this you can have a voice in the regulations process. You're a smart guy and you're passionate. Whether I agree or disagree with your position, we need young guys like you stepping up..
i would go with no they are not in intent to capture or kill if you used your example you could charge people that go out and take pictures of wild animals and show the picture to any hunter not to tell them where the animals are but just to show off there photo graphs so your saying this person is also breaking the law because they indirectly helped the licenced tag hold to where potential game is?