Legal or not?

[longleader]

Is it legal for an unlicensed person to be in the same vehicle as a licensed hunter? In other words, can some who doesn't have a license just go along for the ride?

[Midland]

absolutely

[TPK]

Why not have them pick up an initiation hunters license, then they can actually hunt with you!

[DarekG]

Yes you can absolutely go with them, you just can't shoot at any animals.

[Sofa King]

I know they say there are no stupid questions, but c'mon, think about it for a second.
that's like thinking it's not legal to go into a gun store without your pal.
or you shouldn't be in the vehicle with a friend because you don't have a driver's licence.

[MB_Boy]

Among the MANY, MANY circumstances that we could look at.....one only has to look to the guy who heads out for a day of road hunting with wifey and kidlets in tow. Nothing illegal about it.....just like one guy/gal taking out a few buddies to give them an introduction to hunting.

Where it DOES get sticky is an unlicensed hunter catching a ride WITH a licensed hunter to the pub, grocery store, gun shop etc. ;-) :p ;-)

[longleader]

Ok. I just assumed that as there is a firearm in the vehicle, that all persons in that vehicle could be described as “hunting”. I’ve been with another person who was hunting, and although there was only one rifle, the CO asked to see both of our licences. I was done hunting for the season so had no gun, but fortunately did have my license in the pack. Does who the actual “hunter” is depend on who owns the rifle?

[wideopenthrottle]

Ok. I just assumed that as there is a firearm in the vehicle, that all persons in that vehicle could be described as “hunting”. I’ve been with another person who was hunting, and although there was only one rifle, the CO asked to see both of our licences. I was done hunting for the season so had no gun, but fortunately did have my license in the pack. Does who the actual “hunter” is depend on who owns the rifle?
you probably could have said you were not hunting and he might have still asked you for some other form of id

[Gun Dog]

What if there's more than i gun? For example, a high-power and a 22 (for grouse)? Or what if I've tagged out but am driving and assisting? I'd even have my rifle along. If the CO thinks you're lying then you're lying.

[wideopenthrottle]

I don't think driving in a vehicle is hunting anyway is it?

[TPK]

I don't think driving in a vehicle is hunting anyway is it?
If you're hunting .. then it is hunting, otherwise it's transporting a non-restricted firearm ...

[tim3500]

I think your Question is one that can be only found out by asking a CO because at the the time of being asked who is hunting and who isnt is up for interpitation of the CO this is were things go to a grey area were the Law could be used against you . My advise is just advise, I understand that a CO will tell you every thing you said in a conversationor or in a court of Law while being confronted no different to a anyother officer of the law so dont give them any reason to dought your story . Make sure your partner has no evedence that they have handled a firearm during the Act of Hunting .The act of hunting can be applied to slowly driving down a road with a firearm in the front seat , The said firearm should be out of reach to the unlicenced occupant , That goes with being in the field too. I was told this by a CO . This is only advise !

[cassiarkid]

I was told by a C/O that my friend from New Zealand could not legally go hunting with me, as he said if I am hunting and he is with me, then he too would be considered hunting?? I think it is a very Gray area and is subjective to each C/O. I think a wife and kids would be viewed differently then say an American or non Canadian who would be travelling with you, hence the subjectivity.

Cheers

[Foxton Gundogs]

Over thinking it, if you are not hunting you are not hunting. No license required for sightseeing.

[stevo911_]

As some others have said, it's not nearly as black and white as some people on here seem to think. The definition of hunting copied straight from the regs:

hunt & hunting - includes shooting at,attracting, searching for, chasing, pursuing, followingafter or on the trail of, stalking, or lyingin wait for wildlife or attempting to do any ofthose things, whether or not the wildlife is thenor subsequently wounded, killed or captured:(a) with intention to capture the wildlife, or(b)while in possession of a firearm or other weapon.

They actually touched on this when I took my CORE. While you might not get in trouble, if you get a CO who wants to be a dink, they have enough wiggle room to cause some major headaches.

[cassiarkid]

So you take your buddy with you who is not a hunter, hunting with you. You shoot a deer and he does the friendly thing and helps you bring it out. As you and your "non-hunting" friend are walking back with the deer, a C/O stops you. He has all the right in the world to take the deer and charge the non hunter with hunting, as well as a few other charges, if he is a &j@$, it would be his call. There is plenty of Gray area!! It's not a big deal until it IS a big deal.

Cheers

[wideopenthrottle]

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96145_01
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/research-monitoring-reporting/reporting/environmental-enforcement-reporting/quarterly-environmental-enforcement-summary
http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/00_96488_01#section88n

I have bookmarked these for future reference

[604Stalker]

They can come with you you just better not have more than your gun and don't have it in the passenger side. Read the definition of hunting as long as they are not in the pursuit of wildlife and in possession of a weapon they "should be fine".

[tim3500]

Life is complicated enough why make it more complicated . Go by yourself and hunt or pack a camera and take him .

[IslandBC]

It's a good question if your not sure. If you have your PAL and your hunting license your the one hunting. You could have your truck packed with 5 bros and 10 of your guns in the back of you wanted. As long as your the one pulling the trigger on an animal you have the tag for everyone else is just out for a nature drive.

[IslandBC]

They can come with you you just better not have more than your gun and don't have it in the passenger side. Read the definition of hunting as long as they are not in the pursuit of wildlife and in possession of a weapon they "should be fine".
As long as your supervising your friend who doesn't have a PAL or a hunting license they can hold and shoot your rifle. Just not at any game.

[Looking_4_Jerky]

You are absolutely able to be accompanied by a non-hunter of any age, relation or gender.

The hunter does not depend on who owns the rifle. Example:

You and I are hunting together. You have a hunting license, but do not possess a valid PAL. I have a valid PAL but have not bothered to buy a license for the year. As long as you were under my immediate and direct supervision, you could use my firearm to hunt game that was allowable under your license and tags. None of that would require that I possess a license. You could shoot a deer under my immediate supervision with my gun, then I could go over and gut the deer for you and carry it back to our vehicle and that still would not constitute me as hunting. Hell, you could even give me all the meat and that still wouldn't constitute me as hunting.

[Muliechaser]

So you take your buddy with you who is not a hunter, hunting with you. You shoot a deer and he does the friendly thing and helps you bring it out. As you and your "non-hunting" friend are walking back with the deer, a C/O stops you. He has all the right in the world to take the deer and charge the non hunter with hunting, as well as a few other charges, if he is a &j@$, it would be his call. There is plenty of Gray area!! It's not a big deal until it IS a big deal.

Cheers

The Co would have no such right to take an animal becuase a "non hunter" was helping drag the animal out . Even though he may have been there from start to finish . He did not pull the trigger on the animal . Therefor nothing illegal has been done . The Co Could go pound sand . I dont under stand were these outandish ideas come from sometimes .

Thats like saying that a freindly hunter that stopped to help load my moose must cut his tag to as he handled the animal. Or even get a fine for taking part in "hunting" as the ride along if you dont have a hunting licence.. bullish

Go hunt. take all your buddys along and there dogs to . Have fun show them what its about .

Mc

[M.Dean]

What a "Dumb" question! Someone who don't gott'a hunt'in license!!! That's a good one! If you don't gott'a hunt'in license, I wouldn't give you the time of day, never mind let you in my pickup truck! A man with no hunt'in license, just the thought sends a cold shiver down my spine! Hey, I'd bet money if we checked all them girlie men who ride around in that parade down town Vancouver every year, all dressed up like there sisters and mothers, I think we'd find not a one of them have a Hunt'in License! So there you go! Not have'in a Hunt'in License causes AIDS!!!

[yamadirt 426]

I know they say there are no stupid questions, but c'mon, think about it for a second.
that's like thinking it's not legal to go into a gun store without your pal.
or you shouldn't be in the vehicle with a friend because you don't have a driver's licence.

Your right , no such thing as a stupid question. Only stupid answers.

[IslandBC]

I enjoy reading M deans posts. Not much BS between the lines ha

[jconn]

What a "Dumb" question! Someone who don't gott'a hunt'in license!!! That's a good one! If you don't gott'a hunt'in license, I wouldn't give you the time of day, never mind let you in my pickup truck! A man with no hunt'in license, just the thought sends a cold shiver down my spine! Hey, I'd bet money if we checked all them girlie men who ride around in that parade down town Vancouver every year, all dressed up like there sisters and mothers, I think we'd find not a one of them have a Hunt'in License! So there you go! Not have'in a Hunt'in License causes AIDS!!!

Come on man. The original question was about taking someone out to enjoy the experience of hunting.

Not everyone is raised as a hunter so taking a non hunter out and letting them experience what it's like is great for building the community.

I have no idea how you make the jump from that to bashing homosexuality?? The aids joke is completely uncalled for.

You are probably right that few of the people you describe are hunters.. If I were in their shoes I wouldn't feel very welcome here.

[cassiarkid]

Sorry, I should clarify. I think there is a difference between a non resident of BC and a non hunter, resident of BC. My previous post scenario had to do with my previous post of a non resident. I agree that a BC resident who does not have a hunting licence should not be harassed by a C/O. However if the person with you is from another province or is an non-Canadian, then it is definitely illegal.
When you are driving around in the bush looking for an animal, you are "pursuing". Pursuing does not just mean when you see an animal and go after or try to shoot it, pursuing is also when you are walking or driving trying to find an animal. If that same Non resident then spots a deer for you and again helps you take it out of the bush, they are actively engaged in hunting. Like I said very unlikely that a C/O would bother with a BC Resident, but different story on Non-resident.

[IslandBC]

A BC resident without a hunting license can accompany on a hunt. A none BC resident may accompany on a hunt if you obtain a Permit to accompany. A non resident who is not Canadian can still qualify for a permit to accompany if they are related. Brother, sister , father, mother ect related through family.

[Fisher-Dude]

Or what if I've tagged out but am driving and assisting? I'd even have my rifle along.

Answer: SKUNK, RACCOON 8-1 to 8-15, 8-21 to 8-26 No Closed Season NBL

[Ambush]

First off, I fully support good CO's doing their work. But if the stuff some of you have been told actually came from a CO, then it's time THEY go back to training. It sounds like you could get charged for reading a hunting magazine unless you're all tagged up.

Just keep in mind that a CO can charge you with anything he wants, BUT he DOES NOT decide guilty or not. That is up to a judge.

If you are not hunting, you are not hunting. And I don't need the "Definition of hunting" posted again. I've seen it several dozen times whenever something like this comes up. If you are scouting {looking for and at animals} in June and you don't have your tags or licence yet, but you do have your gun along to sight in, are you guilty of illegal hunting?? No season or tags yet remember.

So I'm in the passenger's seat holding my buddies rifle. He is tagged up and driving. I have no licence or tags with me.

CO pulls us over.

CO says to Buddy. "Are you hunting?"

Buddy says yes and produces licence when asked.

CO says to me "May I see your hunting licence?"

ME : I don't have one with me, 'cause I'm not hunting, just riding along with my Buddy."

CO " but he is hunting so you must be too."

ME: "I don't have a driver's licence either"

CO: "Well he is driving, not you, so you don't need one".

Me: " Exactly, and he is hunting not me, so I don't need a hunting licence either."

If he wants to be a wiener about it and charge me, he will have to prove to a judge that I was indeed actively engaged in the act of hunting. Not going to happen!!

[coach]

This thread is still going? :roll:

[finngun]

Need more popcorn...?:shock: Thnx mr. Dean ..like that..:idea:

[Mulehahn]

As some others have said, it's not nearly as black and white as some people on here seem to think. The definition of hunting copied straight from the regs:

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 ofthose 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.

...

The bolded words are the issue. A person can ride along with you, but they cannot legally help you SEARCH FOR WILDLIFE! Now most COs have common sense and will not push the issue, but according to the letter of the law a person cannot look for wildlife or point it out to you. The real issue is if you are searching for a downed animal. Until you cut your tag you are still technically hunting and they cannot help you. The charges stick probably wouldn't stick, but it would be a huge headache to have to fight them. It is a stupid law, but it is the law as written and has been pursued.

The easiest way to avoid this is to just take a camera, a cell phone will do'; then your friend becomes a photographer and can look for all the wildlife they want.

[Looking_4_Jerky]

What a "Dumb" question! Someone who don't gott'a hunt'in license!!! That's a good one! If you don't gott'a hunt'in license, I wouldn't give you the time of day, never mind let you in my pickup truck! A man with no hunt'in license, just the thought sends a cold shiver down my spine! Hey, I'd bet money if we checked all them girlie men who ride around in that parade down town Vancouver every year, all dressed up like there sisters and mothers, I think we'd find not a one of them have a Hunt'in License! So there you go! Not have'in a Hunt'in License causes AIDS!!!

In a previous post not long ago I said you were a positive contributor to this site. Statement retracted!

I have 2 questions:

The first is whether you took your meds today, because it appears you may be losing your farkin marbles saying sh!t like that in a thread that doesn't even come close to being relevant to your bashings.

The second is, at what point do the mods on this site erase stupid sh!t that people write when it is clearly racist or discriminatory? There's letting people walk the line and then there's blatantly not giving 2 shites about trying to protect the perception and reputation of this site.

[ICEWOODY]

Not allowed personally happended to me. CO said there were two pairs of hunting eyes uped my chances. Barley avoided a fine

[Midland]

First off, I fully support good CO's doing their work. But if the stuff some of you have been told actually came from a CO, then it's time THEY go back to training. It sounds like you could get charged for reading a hunting magazine unless you're all tagged up.

Just keep in mind that a CO can charge you with anything he wants, BUT he DOES NOT decide guilty or not. That is up to a judge.

If you are not hunting, you are not hunting. And I don't need the "Definition of hunting" posted again. I've seen it several dozen times whenever something like this comes up. If you are scouting {looking for and at animals} in June and you don't have your tags or licence yet, but you do have your gun along to sight in, are you guilty of illegal hunting?? No season or tags yet remember.

So I'm in the passenger's seat holding my buddies rifle. He is tagged up and driving. I have no licence or tags with me.

CO pulls us over.

CO says to Buddy. "Are you hunting?"

Buddy says yes and produces licence when asked.

CO says to me "May I see your hunting licence?"

ME : I don't have one with me, 'cause I'm not hunting, just riding along with my Buddy."

CO " but he is hunting so you must be too."

ME: "I don't have a driver's licence either"

CO: "Well he is driving, not you, so you don't need one".

Me: " Exactly, and he is hunting not me, so I don't need a hunting licence either."

If he wants to be a wiener about it and charge me, he will have to prove to a judge that I was indeed actively engaged in the act of hunting. Not going to happen!!


Thank you for this... Exactly

[Midland]

Not allowed personally happended to me. CO said there were two pairs of hunting eyes uped my chances. Barley avoided a fine

bull c$2p...... I can't believe this thread lives on, time to unsubscribe

[IslandBC]

What's bull crap... The OP stated his hunting partner is not just a non resident of BC but also Canada. The situation goes from hunting legally with a no CORE/PAL partner. To hunting illegally with a no CORE/PAL partner.

OP be happy you asked. If your friend is not from BC or Canada you need to call and request a "permit to accompany"

[Xbow]

In a previous post not long ago I said you were a positive contributor to this site. Statement retracted!

I have 2 questions:

The first is whether you took your meds today, because it appears you may be losing your farkin marbles saying sh!t like that in a thread that doesn't even come close to being relevant to your bashings.

The second is, at what point do the mods on this site erase stupid sh!t that people write when it is clearly racist or discriminatory? There's letting people walk the line and then there's blatantly not giving 2 shites about trying to protect the perception and reputation of this site.

I'm starting to think that the mods of this site are racist.... I think they should just put up a sticky native bashing thread.

[Midland]

What's bull crap... The OP stated his hunting partner is not just a non resident of BC but also Canada. The situation goes from hunting legally with a no CORE/PAL partner. To hunting illegally with a no CORE/PAL partner.

OP be happy you asked. If your friend is not from BC or Canada you need to call and request a "permit to accompany"


My apologies, I missed the clarification from OP... 👍

[SSG-man]

And there's your double standard right there in Canada.:roll:

[Glassman]

Last year my son(19yrs old) got a $75 fine because CO said he was hunting with me and had no license on him. We got stopped coming down Bear Creek forest service rd. I complained but you know how that goes.

[teelt]

Last year my son(19yrs old) got a $75 fine because CO said he was hunting with me and had no license on him. We got stopped coming down Bear Creek forest service rd. I complained but you know how that goes.
If I were you I'd fight that one even if just $75. Point being that CO has no right saying your sons not allowed to be with you without a licence. Unless you say he hunting or is in fact carrying the weapon then he's not hunting. I go with my dad all the time and I live from out of province and I don't carry a licence. And even that a CO comes with me hunting from out of province to help pack on hunts. So that's BS if they gave you a ticket unless they had proof he was actually hunting rather than just riding in the truck with you.

[835]

In a previous post not long ago I said you were a positive contributor to this site. Statement retracted!

I have 2 questions:

The first is whether you took your meds today, because it appears you may be losing your farkin marbles saying sh!t like that in a thread that doesn't even come close to being relevant to your bashings.

The second is, at what point do the mods on this site erase stupid sh!t that people write when it is clearly racist or discriminatory? There's letting people walk the line and then there's blatantly not giving 2 shites about trying to protect the perception and reputation of this site.


your kidding right? tell me its so....... you are kidding?

[Ubertuber]

In a previous post not long ago I said you were a positive contributor to this site. Statement retracted!

I have 2 questions:

The first is whether you took your meds today, because it appears you may be losing your farkin marbles saying sh!t like that in a thread that doesn't even come close to being relevant to your bashings.

The second is, at what point do the mods on this site erase stupid sh!t that people write when it is clearly racist or discriminatory? There's letting people walk the line and then there's blatantly not giving 2 shites about trying to protect the perception and reputation of this site.
The ignore button is certainly worth while on some of the guys here that post nothing of substance. I click "view post" occasionally on some of their posts, but sadly it's usually the same old rant or trying to be funny.
It filters out the wheat from the chaff very effectively. I recommend trying it.

[teelt]

Sorry, I should clarify. I think there is a difference between a non resident of BC and a non hunter, resident of BC. My previous post scenario had to do with my previous post of a non resident. I agree that a BC resident who does not have a hunting licence should not be harassed by a C/O. However if the person with you is from another province or is an non-Canadian, then it is definitely illegal.
When you are driving around in the bush looking for an animal, you are "pursuing". Pursuing does not just mean when you see an animal and go after or try to shoot it, pursuing is also when you are walking or driving trying to find an animal. If that same Non resident then spots a deer for you and again helps you take it out of the bush, they are actively engaged in hunting. Like I said very unlikely that a C/O would bother with a BC Resident, but different story on Non-resident.
this is so not true. So all those people walking around in the bush with a knife in there pocket must have a hunting licence BS. Got to give your head a shake on that one. As I said I hunt with COs often and I'm a non resident and they hunt with me and their non resident. And they help bring meat out. I'm not taking a person back sheep hunting with me so they don't help carry out.
If they want to charge you with hunting when your with someone they can try but they have to prove that you are hunting and just walking with a friend in the bush or helping a friend pack out an animal does not prove anything. You can even take a shotgun in the bush as a non resident for protection as long as you have your PAL.

[Ubertuber]

Make sure the non-licensed person is just taking pictures and hiling. I'd make a point of keeping it as plain as day that they are not hunting.

[wideopenthrottle]

If they want to charge you with hunting when your with someone they can try but they have to prove that you are hunting and just walking with a friend in the bush or helping a friend pack out an animal does not prove anything. You can even take a shotgun in the bush as a non resident for protection as long as you have your PAL.

remember the difference between a criminal offence (innocent until proven guilty) and a strict liability offence (ticket: once issued, you need to prove you are innocent)

[Looking_4_Jerky]

your kidding right? tell me its so....... you are kidding?

Well, I wasn't kidding about any of it, but just for clarity, which part are you referring to?

[stevo911_]

...
Just keep in mind that a CO can charge you with anything he wants, BUT he DOES NOT decide guilty or not. That is up to a judge.

If you are not hunting, you are not hunting. And I don't need the "Definition of hunting" posted again. I've seen it several dozen times whenever something like this comes up. If you are scouting {looking for and at animals} in June and you don't have your tags or licence yet, but you do have your gun along to sight in, are you guilty of illegal hunting?? No season or tags yet remember.

So I'm in the passenger's seat holding my buddies rifle. He is tagged up and driving. I have no licence or tags with me.

CO pulls us over.

CO says to Buddy. "Are you hunting?"

Buddy says yes and produces licence when asked.

CO says to me "May I see your hunting licence?"

ME : I don't have one with me, 'cause I'm not hunting, just riding along with my Buddy."

CO " but he is hunting so you must be too."

ME: "I don't have a driver's licence either"

CO: "Well he is driving, not you, so you don't need one".

Me: " Exactly, and he is hunting not me, so I don't need a hunting licence either."

If he wants to be a wiener about it and charge me, he will have to prove to a judge that I was indeed actively engaged in the act of hunting. Not going to happen!!
The reason the definition of hunting comes up every time is because it's what the law defines as hunting, and what the CO's are interpreting.
As this thread highlights everybody has a different opinion, because there is intentionally ambiguity left in the laws/regs like these to leave room for the discretion of the officers.

In your example above:
If you're obviously road hunting, driving slow and are both looking at the cuts, are you both looking for wildlife? You sure are!
Do you either possess a firearm, OR have the intention of capturing the wildlife? Yes again!
Guess what!?! You just checked both boxes for the definition hunting, according to the word of the law

I'm sure we're all aware law enforcement are not all infallible, and that that particular career path tends to draw people who have a power tripping/bouncer mentality. Knowing that do you really want to gamble on the fact that any CO you might run into is: interpreting the law the exactly the same way as you, or having a good day and in a forgiving mood despite disagreeing with you, and gamble that you're not going to encounter a word of the law type officer, or somebody just having a crappy day?

Life is expensive, complicated and short enough without adding the potential headaches and/or repercussions that could come as a result of leaving lots of wiggle room on discretionary decisions left up to a complete stranger. Even if the CO charges you and the judge disagrees, you're still the one missing work to go to court and potentially paying a lawyer.

[cassiarkid]

Teelt

I guess we will agree to disagree, because I had a friend from New Zealand who I wanted to take hunting with me as an observer and I asked a C/O and he said I legally could not. He didn't even mention getting a permit to do so. This is where each C/O has the ability to use his own judgement as the law! ....and this is exactly what a previous person had said that they make the legal wording ambiguous on purpose, so that the C/O's can use judgement.

Cheers

[MB_Boy]

I just find it odd that if someone wants to take their child with no license out hunting with them.....technically they can't.

i know when I was young in MB before I could legally have a license I went out hunting with my Dad from when I was about 5 thru the age of 12 and would spot animals/birds. At 12 I could finally get a license but prior to that I was hunting without a license.

[GotaGun]

Give your buddy a camera.
He's now your "film crew".....

[Ambush]

If you're obviously road hunting, driving slow and are both looking at the cuts, are you both looking for wildlife? You sure are!
Do you either possess a firearm, OR have the intention of capturing the wildlife? Yes again!
Guess what!?! You just checked both boxes for the definition hunting, according to the word of the law.

So you are saying it is illegal to take along your non-licenced wife or girlfriend. How about your gramma? Your 10 or 8 or 6 year old son? Or really, anybody with eyes! My kids could spot game like pros at six.

Anybody that has gotten a fine under these circumstances unwittingly admitted that they were hunting. Maybe through clever [under handed] questioning or trickery, but they would have to admit it.
I will also concede that there is a new breed of young CO's that are basically anti-hunting. They believe their job is to have hunters shoot as few animals as possible, ie protecting their wildlife. To them, every hunter is a poacher they just haven't caught yet.

But I will continue to take anybody I want along with me, because you're right. Life's too short and complicated to worry about over zealous CO's. Maybe a judge will force them to make the definition very clear in response to them wasting his time.

[jconn]

Thank you for your email dated October 29, 2015, regarding a non hunter accompanying a hunter in the field.



Non-hunters that are not in possession of a firearm may accompany a hunter and the non hunter is not required to be in possession of a hunting licence.



The Wildlife Act definition of hunt is:



"hunt" 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;



If an individual is doing an activity that is captured in the definition of hunt they are required to possess all appropriate hunting licenses. Many non-hunting people participate in the activity of hunting; if the accompanying individual is not meeting the definition of hunt (i.e. is not in possession of a firearm or other weapon) they would not require a hunting licence and may accompany a licensed hunter. People that are in the field and not in possession of a firearm or other weapon (and do not intend to capture wildlife) would not be meeting the definition of hunting and would not require a hunting licence.



A non-hunter may accompany a hunter on their hunt and observe, there are no regulations against that, in fact it is encouraged that hunters mentor and initiate non-hunters into the sport. The non-hunter can assist in packing harvested wildlife out of the field, however ensure that the licensed hunter accompanies the meat at all times unless the non hunter is in possession of a completed “record of receipt for transporting wildlife”, found on page 24 of the 2012-2014 Hunting and Trapping Regulations Synopsis available online at http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/hunting/regulations/.

[Ambush]

Thanks jconn.

I was just about to post that you cannot have the preamble applied if you don't meet the "a" or "b" conditions.

[Ambush]

Perhaps a Mod can sticky jconns post for future reference, since this same argument comes up a few times every season. It always starts, proceeds and ends the same, that is with no resolution for most.

[Xenomorph]

Perhaps a Mod can sticky jconns post for future reference, since this same argument comes up a few times every season. It always starts, proceeds and ends the same, that is with no resolution for most.


+1 very good, succinct and to the point info

[Gateholio]

If you see something that you think needs the attention of a Mod, please use the report a post feature (The little Exclamation point in a triangle at the bottom of every post)

Mods don't read every thread and any post.

On this thread I don't see anything that needs deleting or the attention of a mod. M.Dean is well known for his ranting posts which are usually peppered with salty humour. I have read dozens of his posts like this and I don't believe any of them are truly mean spirited.

Ambush, good idea.

[hunter1947]

Is it legal for an unlicensed person to be in the same vehicle as a licensed hunter? In other words, can some who doesn't have a license just go along for the ride?


Yes no probs you can have a person or two with in you truck or car does not matter how many rifles you have in your car or truck the CO would have to catch the person that has no L shooting a animal or bird with one of the rifles..

[M.Dean]

I just find it odd that if someone wants to take their child with no license out hunting with them.....technically they can't.

i know when I was young in MB before I could legally have a license I went out hunting with my Dad from when I was about 5 thru the age of 12 and would spot animals/birds. At 12 I could finally get a license but prior to that I was hunting without a license. It's a dam good thing I've never, ever, cross my old heart and hope to die, let a young Child target practice before they had a license to handle a gun, or worse yet, shoot at a grouse before they ever had a hunting license or a hunters number!!! It just go's without say'in, Not one member on here would ever let a Child shoot a 22, cuz that's "Illegal"! And I know that I for one would be the first person to turn in one of my Children or even a Grand Child that handled a rifle before they had all the Legal paper work! Throw the young offenders in prison for 8 to 10 years and then see if they want to touch that 22 again, eh! And hey, if anyone here knows of a under age Child that has fired a weapon of any kind, do the right thing, Turn that Delinquent in! Pronto!!!

[Xenomorph]

It's a dam good thing I've never, ever, cross my old heart and hope to die, let a young Child target practice before they had a license to handle a gun, or worse yet, shoot at a grouse before they ever had a hunting license or a hunters number!!! It just go's without say'in, Not one member on here would ever let a Child shoot a 22, cuz that's "Illegal"! And I know that I for one would be the first person to turn in one of my Children or even a Grand Child that handled a rifle before they had all the Legal paper work! Throw the young offenders in prison for 8 to 10 years and then see if they want to touch that 22 again, eh! And hey, if anyone here knows of a under age Child that has fired a weapon of any kind, do the right thing, Turn that Delinquent in! Pronto!!!

I was 8yo when I fired a weapon for the first time. My ranger uncle's European side by side. Promptly put me on my arse. Was aiming for a stump, the stump wasn't hurt in the process. :)

Told you once, we'll enjoy a chat one day. Have fun.

[longleader]

Thank you for your email dated October 29, 2015, regarding a non hunter accompanying a hunter in the field.



Non-hunters that are not in possession of a firearm may accompany a hunter and the non hunter is not required to be in possession of a hunting licence.



The Wildlife Act definition of hunt is:



"hunt" 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;



If an individual is doing an activity that is captured in the definition of hunt they are required to possess all appropriate hunting licenses. Many non-hunting people participate in the activity of hunting; if the accompanying individual is not meeting the definition of hunt (i.e. is not in possession of a firearm or other weapon) they would not require a hunting licence and may accompany a licensed hunter. People that are in the field and not in possession of a firearm or other weapon (and do not intend to capture wildlife) would not be meeting the definition of hunting and would not require a hunting licence.



A non-hunter may accompany a hunter on their hunt and observe, there are no regulations against that, in fact it is encouraged that hunters mentor and initiate non-hunters into the sport. The non-hunter can assist in packing harvested wildlife out of the field, however ensure that the licensed hunter accompanies the meat at all times unless the non hunter is in possession of a completed “record of receipt for transporting wildlife”, found on page 24 of the 2012-2014 Hunting and Trapping Regulations Synopsis available online at http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/hunting/regulations/.


Thank you, jconn.

That is a very clear statement of the legalities. Is this an answer you received from the C.O. Service?

[jconn]

Yes that is a response I received from the CO service.

I'm a new hunter myself and don't know anyone else who hunts so being able to bring a friend out with me just for some company and to share the experience was really interesting to me so wanted to be sure.

[Gun Dog]

Thank you for your email dated October 29, 2015, regarding a non hunter accompanying a hunter in the field.



Non-hunters that are not in possession of a firearm may accompany a hunter and the non hunter is not required to be in possession of a hunting licence.

...Nice work. I'm going to print it out and keep it with my gear (for those COs unfamiliar with the rules). Do you have the complete version with a name?

[jconn]

Nice work. I'm going to print it out and keep it with my gear (for those COs unfamiliar with the rules). Do you have the complete version with a name?

Gd,

Here is the full email I received. I'm also planning to keep a printed copy just in case. The last paragraph is the only part I left out of my original post since I figured it's not really relevant to the more general discussion of this thread.

Hello James,



Thank you for your email dated October 29, 2015, regarding a non hunter accompanying a hunter in the field.



Non-hunters that are not in possession of a firearm may accompany a hunter and the non hunter is not required to be in possession of a hunting licence.



The Wildlife Act definition of hunt is:



"hunt" 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;

If an individual is doing an activity that is captured in the definition of hunt they are required to possess all appropriate hunting licenses. Many non-hunting people participate in the activity of hunting; if the accompanying individual is not meeting the definition of hunt (i.e. is not in possession of a firearm or other weapon) they would not require a hunting licence and may accompany a licensed hunter. People that are in the field and not in possession of a firearm or other weapon (and do not intend to capture wildlife) would not be meeting the definition of hunting and would not require a hunting licence.

A non-hunter may accompany a hunter on their hunt and observe, there are no regulations against that, in fact it is encouraged that hunters mentor and initiate non-hunters into the sport. The non-hunter can assist in packing harvested wildlife out of the field, however ensure that the licensed hunter accompanies the meat at all times unless the non hunter is in possession of a completed “record of receipt for transporting wildlife”, found on page 24 of the 2012-2014 Hunting and Trapping Regulations Synopsis available online at http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/hunting/regulations/.

You may want to learn about the new “Initiation License” available as a once in a lifetime offer to non-hunters. Information on the Initiation Licence (including eligibility and requirements for a supervising hunter) is available at http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/hunting/resident/#Licences. Initiation Licenses can be obtained at any hunting license vendor, locations of hunting license vendors can be found through this website: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/lvs/. However, given that you are a new hunter it is likely that you do not meet the prescribed qualifications to supervise a person in possession of an initiation hunting licence.

Regards,

Stephen MacIver|A/Manager, Wildlife Management Section|Fish & Wildlife Branch|Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations|Phone (250) 387-9792|Mobile (250) 889-9497|Email: stephen.maciver@gov.bc.ca

[longleader]

Thanks again, jconn. Your situation is similar to that of a new hunter I have recently become a friend of. He is planning to take a friend of his (who doesn’t currently hold a license) with him occasionally on short hunts, just for company. So I took it upon myself to find out for sure if this was ok to do. A few days ago I emailed the CO Service with that question, but so far haven’t received a response. I’m sure I will, but in the meantime I have printed off the reply you got (without your name of course) just to cover the bases.

And thanks to all that contributed to the discussion – the whole spectrum from helpful, not so helpful, and even tongue in cheek humour! It’s all good.

Bill

[J_T]

Thought I'd share a personal experience with you on this topic. Not
that long ago my father and I were hunting. I had tagged out but was still helping my Dad out. He was 83 at the time. I did not have a bow with me and my Father was carrying all of his own gear.
We came out of the bush and were met by CO's. There comment was, "I was dressed in camo, therefore I must be hunting."

Always be cautious with interpretation of the law.

[longleader]

jconn, yesterday I received my reply to the “question”, which is exactly the same as yours except that it has my name on it, of course. I guess the reasoning behind the “….given that you are a new hunter…” part must be that if you weren’t a new hunter then you wouldn’t be asking about it in the first place. Well, after buying about 55 annual hunting licences (getting close to 70 now) I had never questioned the legality before. Always just thought it was ok, but as I get older and more cautious I find that I like all my i’s dotted and my t’s crossed, even if it’s for another person. Don’t like to see any needless trouble.


It is obviously a subject which must come up often enough for them to have a reply ready to fire off. I see that the main part of the reply has been pinned on this forum, which is a good thing.

[416]

Thought I'd share a personal experience with you on this topic. Not
that long ago my father and I were hunting. I had tagged out but was still helping my Dad out. He was 83 at the time. I did not have a bow with me and my Father was carrying all of his own gear.
We came out of the bush and were met by CO's. There comment was, "I was dressed in camo, therefore I must be hunting."

Always be cautious with interpretation of the law.

The fact you had a hunting license and there is always an open season on skunks and raccoon wasn't enough to pacify the bush cops?

[J_T]

The fact you had a hunting license and there is always an open season on skunks and raccoon wasn't enough to pacify the bush cops?Certainly not. Took two years to resolve. Favourably for myself. But it certainly made me re-think the definitions of 'accompany' and 'to hunt'. If the person that is with you, enhances your hunt..... even using their eyes.

[Gun Dog]

There comment was, "I was dressed in camo, therefore I must be hunting."
Did you explain that camo is the new black?

[J_T]

Did you explain that camo is the new black?Well, not exactly, but my Father did suggest if they thought wearing camo defined hunting, they should head on in to Walmart and make some arrests.....

[stevo911_]

So you are saying it is illegal to take along your non-licenced wife or girlfriend. How about your gramma? Your 10 or 8 or 6 year old son? Or really, anybody with eyes! My kids could spot game like pros at six.

Anybody that has gotten a fine under these circumstances unwittingly admitted that they were hunting. Maybe through clever [under handed] questioning or trickery, but they would have to admit it.
I will also concede that there is a new breed of young CO's that are basically anti-hunting. They believe their job is to have hunters shoot as few animals as possible, ie protecting their wildlife. To them, every hunter is a poacher they just haven't caught yet.

But I will continue to take anybody I want along with me, because you're right. Life's too short and complicated to worry about over zealous CO's. Maybe a judge will force them to make the definition very clear in response to them wasting his time.

I'm just saying that if an overzealous individual wants to interpret the law that way, and be an a-hole, they have the wiggle room to do so. In the end you might not get charged, but its going to take time and money to resolve either way, and for myself, I'd rather open myself up to as little of that risk as possible, as it's not worth the potential headache. (Risk Vs Reward)

[Looking_4_Jerky]

Well, not exactly, but my Father did suggest if they thought wearing camo defined hunting, they should head on in to Walmart and make some arrests.....

Lol... Your father is a wise man!