Flying by plane or helicoter in 7-1 or 7-3

[Peace Country]

Hello guys I cant seen to find in the regulations if I can fly into this area for hunting this fall, either by floats, wheel, helicopter. Any help would be great.

[ultramagbob]

No Helicopters allowed to transport hunters in B.C

[Peace Country]

Where does it say that in the regs do you know I cant find it.

[ultramagbob]

in the front somewhere,Im sure one of the geeks on the site will post up a link

[Stone Sheep Steve]

No Helicopters allowed to transport hunters in B.C

Or their gear.

SSS

[BCrams]

Page 18 of the regs:


7. to hunt or transport hunters or wildlife


by a helicopter.


8. to hunt wildlife from an aircraft.




9. to hunt wildlife within 6 hours of being

airborne in an aircraft other than a

regularly scheduled commercial aircraft.

[25tikka]

I think the entire 7-1 is closed as it is Robson Park. 7-3 is great for deer moose goats and the occasional elk but I doubt there is anyplace to land an airplane as the Fraser river is quite fast in that area. Great hunting though.

[Ambush]

This regulation, concening helicoptors, has been reworded, a few years ago.

Now it simply states, " no hunters or game" and makes no mention of gear used in support of hunting.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

This regulation, concening helicoptors, has been reworded, a few years ago.

Now it simply states, " no hunters or game" and makes no mention of gear used in support of hunting.

Thanks for the update.

SSS

[Mauser98]

Here's the full text from the Wildlife Act. The 'while on a hunting expedition' part would preclude moving gear to fly camps, etc.


Use of conveyance

27 (1) A person who discharges a firearm or wounds or kills wildlife from a motor vehicle or from a boat that is propelled by a motor commits an offence.

(2) A person commits an offence if the person
(a) hunts wildlife from an aircraft, or
(b) uses a helicopter for the purposes of transporting hunters or game, or while on a hunting expedition,
except as authorized by regulation.
(3) A person who herds or harasses wildlife with the use of a motor vehicle, aircraft, boat or other mechanical device commits an offence.
(4) A person who hunts game within 6 hours after being airborne in an aircraft, other than a regularly scheduled commercial aircraft, commits an offence.

[BCrams]

This regulation, concening helicoptors, has been reworded, a few years ago.

Now it simply states, " no hunters or game" and makes no mention of gear used in support of hunting.

Careful what you post. Gear in support of hunting (i.e., backpacks, food) cannot be transported ahead of the hunt with a helicopter.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Here's the full text from the Wildlife Act. The 'while on a hunting expedition' part would preclude moving gear to fly camps, etc.

So I wonder if the regs were re-worded so that a GO could bring in supplies to build a cabin? Because it would not be used specifically in a "hunting expedition" it would comply with the regs?? Anyone have any idea why the regs were re-worded??

SSS

[Skeena Hunter 1]

So I wonder if the regs were re-worded so that a GO could bring in supplies to build a cabin? Because it would not be used specifically in a "hunting expedition" it would comply with the regs?? Anyone have any idea why the regs were re-worded??

SSS

A few years(might be more than a few) the province lost a court case I believe, a couple resident hunters transported some gear ahead of time and then hiked in, they were charged, judge decided agiainst the crown....too grey.
Don't have specifics at my finger tips, but if someone has the time, maybe you can find the actual case, in the peace i beleive.

[dana]

What if someone had a non-hunter fly with gear? Say your non-hunting wife flys into an area like the Assiniboine with a wall-tent, food, and her hiking gear to do some heli-hiking, and you just happen to hike in and sleep in her wall-tent and eat her food. You get a sheep, you'd just have to pack out the meat and your rifle. Your non-hunting wife flies out all her gear on her trip out. Hmmm, I wonder if that has ever been tried?

[Ambush]

Careful what you post. Gear in support of hunting (i.e., backpacks, food) cannot be transported ahead of the hunt with a helicopter.

Rams:
Not sure where you are reading that part from. To me it says hunters or wildlife or using an aircraft to hunt from.

The old wording excluded, by definition, supplies used in support of hunting.

[Slee]

I know of a few oufitters that sling in food and supplies with helicopters why wouldnt us poor residents be allowed to do the same?

[d6dan]

Last 12 posts say it all....

[Jetboater]

Rams you Geek......

[goatdancer]

Would be advisable to call your local CO and get the real facts. They're the ones that will fry your butt if you screw up.

[dana]

Actually that isn't entirely true. The CO's are no different than the RCMP. They can press charges, but those charges have to be able to produce a conviction in a court of law. If the law is vague, with grey areas, it is hard to get the judge to agree with the CO's interpretation. If a CO were to pursue the issue, they might just be hoping that you plead out and take your lumps. No different than a CO giving ya a ticket for improperly canceling your tag because there is a small bit of paper still left in the triangle where you cut it. Most hunters just pay the fine and don't say, "See ya in court". In my opinion, if you had the money to actually challenge the anti-gear heli law, you'd probably win.

[bigwhiteys]

I know of a few oufitters that sling in food and supplies with helicopters why wouldnt us poor residents be allowed to do the same?

My grandpa used them in the 60's to haul food and supplies for his outfit. Then he got his own pilots license and built some airstrips and flew everything on his own from there on out.

Carl

[boxhitch]

(b) uses a helicopter for the purposes of transporting hunters or game, or while on a hunting expedition,
except as authorized by regulation.

That does seem to open up the use for anything not expedition-specific.
Remote camps, cabin building, food caches, gun caches ......

Dana's case is another example of exploiting the grey. Typical.

[dana]

"Dana's case is another example of exploiting the grey. Typical."

I don't know why you'd end that with the word 'typical'. I'm certainly not one to exploit the grey areas. I'm a single income family and it's not like I'll ever have enough money to be getting a helicopter to fly my wife into a remote area for me to hike in after the fact. All my hunting is done with my own two legs because that is the cheapest way I can do it.
The example I used of the Assiniboine was because there was a big discussion on here a while ago about how stupid the laws are regarding that hunt. I've never put in for there, and never will. I'll waste my sheep draw on Kamloops Lake every year instead.

[boxhitch]

Whoa, not pointing the finger at you.
Saying if there is a grey area, someone will get into it.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

My grandpa used them in the 60's to haul food and supplies for his outfit. Then he got his own pilots license and built some airstrips and flew everything on his own from there on out.

Carl

Perfectly legal in the old days.

I've looked my my Uncles slide shows hunting goats with his helicopter.

Kind of glad they changed the rules.....so was he.

He took his biggest goat after they changed the regs.

SSS

[willy442]

So I wonder if the regs were re-worded so that a GO could bring in supplies to build a cabin? Because it would not be used specifically in a "hunting expedition" it would comply with the regs?? Anyone have any idea why the regs were re-worded??

SSS

Having you involved as a resident hunter in this Province is really not much of an asset to anyone. Every time something comes up that fails to fit in with your selfishness, you cry about it and blame Outfitters. Maybe you should do as stated on the thread about changes to the wildlife act and look in a mirror. There are alot of G/O's out there and you seem to have a problem with all of them. Makes me wonder who the problem really is. For your information it is also against the law for a guide to fly supplies. Cabins and development of assets and infastructure are different. You could also hire one to fly material in to build a cabin if you had a location and the money.:p

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Having you involved as a resident hunter in this Province is really not much of an asset to anyone. Every time something comes up that fails to fit in with your selfishness, you cry about it and blame Outfitters. Maybe you should do as stated on the thread about changes to the wildlife act and look in a mirror. There are alot of G/O's out there and you seem to have a problem with all of them. Makes me wonder who the problem really is. For your information it is also against the law for a guide to fly supplies. Cabins and development of assets and infastructure are different. You could also hire one to fly material in to build a cabin if you had a location and the money.:p

I asked a couple of "simple" questions for anyone with the correct info.

Thanks for your custom response. It makes me feel really special:roll:.

SSS

[willy442]

I asked a couple of "simple" questions for anyone with the correct info.

Thanks for your custom response. It makes me feel really special:roll:.

SSS

That same simple question is asked by you every time something changes. I guess wine and whine go together in your world. Sorry to hurt your feelings, but you are SPECIAL, to bad so many G/O's dealt you all those shitty cards and left you so soured. How about putting something constructive back into hunting. :lol:

[bigwhiteys]

I've looked my my Uncles slide shows hunting goats with his helicopter.Kind of glad they changed the rules.....so was he.

My Grandpa didn't hunt with the helicopter. It was used to move supplies. They practiced fair chase.

Carl

[Ambush]

[quote=willy442;41514 For your information it is also against the law for a guide to fly supplies.[/quote]

Willy442:
Do you know for an absolute fact, that it would be illegal for me to have a camp slung in with a helicoptor and then to hike in and hunt out of that camp? No hunters or wildlife would be moved by the helicoptor. Is this the current regulations?

[willy442]

Willy442:
Do you know for an absolute fact, that it would be illegal for me to have a camp slung in with a helicoptor and then to hike in and hunt out of that camp? No hunters or wildlife would be moved by the helicoptor. Is this the current regulations?

Yes, I believe so. I know of a party a few years back that did a fly in supplies thing, claiming that they were prospecting. The party was caught hunting and charged. We used to fly supplies by chopper years ago and quit when the ministry changed the laws. I think the change was for the better as there were some pretty shady things happening before that time. I was stalking a book bull Caribou, with a hunter on the head waters of the Rabbit River one time and a helicopter landed, shot him and slung the whole animal out. Needless to say I was pissed, so was my hunter. We got the call letters and turned them in but at that time no laws existed and nothing happened.

[Ambush]

I was stalking a book bull Caribou, with a hunter on the head waters of the Rabbit River one time and a helicopter landed, shot him and slung the whole animal out. Needless to say I was pissed, so was my hunter. We got the call letters and turned them in but at that time no laws existed and nothing happened.

Too bad you wern't able to shot the antlers full of holes or better yet shoot them off the skull. All that stinky caribou meat and no scorable antlers!

The laws are very rigid about moving wildlife by helicopter in BC. Don't think they would get away with that in the last 15 years.

I may have been givin' the wrong impression, and so will have to go farther up the ladder.

[branthunter]

Here's a 2004 case... it does not appear to have been appealed ,or sighted subsequently in B.C.. See especially para...s. 39-53, 55, 63, 67-74, and, da da, the acquital at 78.
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2004/02/p04_0212.htm

[Ambush]

Thanks Branthunter. I will have to read it all three or four more times.

The key is , what has the MOE done in the meantime to "plug the holes"?

[boxhitch]

There are no holes to plug. The use of helicopters is allowed if it falls outside the definition of hunting.
I believe it used to be and to some extent still believed that the use of helicopters in support of anything to do with hunting was illegal. People that I know carried on business with this in mind.

[GoatGuy]

The use of helicopters is allowed if it falls outside the definition of hunting.



That's your answer.

[dana]

Very good and interesting read. Thanks for posting that up.

[branthunter]

There are no holes to plug. The use of helicopters is allowed if it falls outside the definition of hunting.
I believe it used to be and to some extent still believed that the use of helicopters in support of anything to do with hunting was illegal. People that I know carried on business with this in mind.

In my view that is a hole that needs plugging....perhaps with something such as "...or contributes in any way to the support of or access to a hunt" ?

[BCrams]

Boxhitch -

A scenario:


Mule deer hunting starts Sept 1st for archery. Hunters will not be "hunting" until September 1st."We're not 'hunting' until September 1st." they could say.

Hunters fly in via helicopter on August 30, 31 to their 'camp' and hang out in camp for a couple days doing 'nothing'. No hunting.
Hunters start "hunting" opening morning on Sept 1st.Successful hunters then hike off mountain with their deer.

Legal ???

[BCrams]

In my view that is a hole that needs plugging....perhaps with something such as "...or contributes in any way to the support of or access to a hunt" ?

I agree if its the case.

[boxhitch]

Boxhitch -

A scenario:

Mule deer hunting starts Sept 1st for archery. Hunters will not be "hunting" until September 1st."We're not 'hunting' until September 1st." they could say.

Hunters fly in via helicopter on August 30, 31 to their 'camp' and hang out in camp for a couple days doing 'nothing'. No hunting.
Hunters start "hunting" opening morning on Sept 1st.Successful hunters then hike off mountain with their deer.

Legal ???After looking at the Shippman court case which was linked, I would say the judge would toss the charges. The way it is explained there is clear, though convoluted. Not sure how the case would work out if the hunter had firearms on board, but the case points at the fact he was not a hunter at the time of the flights.

Do I like it? No. Do I agree? No.
Odd, that the wording of the Act was changed in 1989, and there hasn't been much news of helicopter use.
We could argue that the use is an advantage to a G/O in his remote wilderness business, then again we could look at the possibilities for access by fellow hunters

[boxhitch]

That's your answer.Only based on reading through the linked court case. I actually was under the understanding helicopter use was illegal for anything to do in support of hunting, at any time.
and probably perpetuated this belief around many campfires.

[whitetailsheds]

From the sounds of it, even had he been carrying firearms, he wasn't hunting at the time and wouldn't have suffered any consequences. Go figure...

[willy442]

Only based on reading through the linked court case. I actually was under the understanding helicopter use was illegal for anything to do in support of hunting, at any time.
and probably perpetuated this belief around many campfires.

If you and Rams need more clarifacation on this, call the heli companies and see if they will fly you. My bet is you'll be putting one foot in front of the other, from where ever you leave your truck.

[boxhitch]

If you and Rams need more clarifacation on this, call the heli companies and see if they will fly you. My bet is ......
Your beliefs and $1.39 will get you a coffee and a muffin.
IF I was interested I would ask a heli contractor and ask for clarification IF and when he refused service.

[GoatGuy]

Only based on reading through the linked court case. I actually was under the understanding helicopter use was illegal for anything to do in support of hunting, at any time.
and probably perpetuated this belief around many campfires.

Road closures for hunting follow the same lines as far as I know. No problem going in driving around, so long as you don't have your cannon on board.

You can also drive all your gear in before the road closure starts for hunting and stash it then hike in after the season starts.

Least that's the interpretation from some of the co's.


There's plenty of grey in the Wildlife Act, lots of different issues. Even the definition of baiting can be interpreted in different ways. You won't know where the colour changes until you take it to court. Even if you win you're going to have to deal with the hunting fraternity.

Definitions

"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;



2) A person commits an offence if the person
(b) uses a helicopter for the purposes of transporting hunters or game, or while on a hunting expedition,
except as authorized by regulation.

On top of all this if you want gear stashed somewhere and you're flying in, just box it up, dump it out of the plane and mark it with your GPS. Simple solution.

[GoatGuy]

If you and Rams need more clarifacation on this, call the heli companies and see if they will fly you. My bet is you'll be putting one foot in front of the other, from where ever you leave your truck.

So the heli companies are the ones who enforce the Wildlife Act? Good to know.

[boxhitch]

Even if you win you're going to have to deal with the hunting fraternity.

.So the hunting fraternity are the ones who enforce the W.A. ?:-)

And I thought the Wildlife Act had the hunters interest at heart ?

[BCrams]

Willy -

I do not support the use of a helicopter in any way or form to 'assist' a hunter.

The way I see it, the "intent" of the hunter is to pursue wildlife, even if the 'act' of hunting has yet to occur.

[GoatGuy]

So the hunting fraternity are the ones who enforce the W.A. ?:-)

And I thought the Wildlife Act had the hunters interest at heart ?

No, just that you have to deal with the 'social side'. As we all know, hunters aren't much for forgiveness even if it was 'legal'.

[Kody94]

Willy -

I do not support the use of a helicopter in any way or form to 'assist' a hunter.

The way I see it, the "intent" of the hunter is to pursue wildlife, even if the 'act' of hunting has yet to occur.

I agree 100%.

[willy442]

Willy -

I do not support the use of a helicopter in any way or form to 'assist' a hunter.

The way I see it, the "intent" of the hunter is to pursue wildlife, even if the 'act' of hunting has yet to occur.

Rams: Not saying you do support it. My point was, everyones beating a dead horse if no one will fly you. The Shipman case was unique in the fact the hunter was a nonresident that had to be guided in order to be hunting. This is not mentioned by the judge in the ruling but did carry alot of wieght in the case. The change to the act in 1989 on hunt and hunting was in fact brought in to clear up the meaning of hunting on account of packers and illegal guiding.

Bailey helicopters here in the North is managed by a relative of mine. I can assure you that he will not allow a chopper in the air to assist a hunter in any way other than a rescue or to air lift out quads that break the rules in the MK. They also do most the flying though for the ministry.

[dana]

To play devil's advocate, I'm curious as to why some don't like this ruling? What makes heli access any different than a plane? Granted the obvious is they can pretty much land anywhere but if you had to wait a specific amount of time before hunting, why would it take away from the idea of fair chase? I've seen some on here joke about Chuteplanes as being a possiblity to hunt some remote areas, why then are they okay and a heli isn't in your minds? Why is the idea of stashing gear from a heli so wrong? Yes, I think we all agree that actually hunting from a heli like they do in New Zealand isn't our collective idea of fairchase. But how is a gear drop from a plane any different than a gear drop from a heli? Is there a timelimit that it would be acceptable in our collective minds? If I did a forestry drop camp in the summer in a remote drainage and I left my walltent stashed for a fall hunt, would that be overstepping the fairchase rules?

[willy442]

So the heli companies are the ones who enforce the Wildlife Act? Good to know.

Not a bad idea: At least we have some doing it and they may even get a charge to stick.

[Fisher-Dude]

A few years(might be more than a few) the province lost a court case I believe, a couple resident hunters transported some gear ahead of time and then hiked in, they were charged, judge decided agiainst the crown....too grey.
Don't have specifics at my finger tips, but if someone has the time, maybe you can find the actual case, in the peace i beleive.

Shippmann is a guide. Go to court and get a reasonable law thrown out on a technicality so that he, the one who can afford to haul some fat-walleted alien around in a helicopter, can cheat. Total bullshit, IMO. Time to get some new wording and pass a law that levels the playing field.

http://www.huntlra.com/aboutus.htm

PS - any guy whose wife is named "Thor" is a bit weird, IMO! :lol:

[Gateholio]

To play devil's advocate, I'm curious as to why some don't like this ruling? What makes heli access any different than a plane? Granted the obvious is they can pretty much land anywhere but if you had to wait a specific amount of time before hunting, why would it take away from the idea of fair chase? I've seen some on here joke about Chuteplanes as being a possiblity to hunt some remote areas, why then are they okay and a heli isn't in your minds? Why is the idea of stashing gear from a heli so wrong? Yes, I think we all agree that actually hunting from a heli like they do in New Zealand isn't our collective idea of fairchase. But how is a gear drop from a plane any different than a gear drop from a heli? Is there a timelimit that it would be acceptable in our collective minds? If I did a forestry drop camp in the summer in a remote drainage and I left my walltent stashed for a fall hunt, would that be overstepping the fairchase rules?


Interesting point....Like what Goat Guy mentions about trucking in a camp prior to hunting season in closed areas.

[willy442]

Shippmann is a guide. Go to court and get a reasonable law thrown out on a technicality so that he, the one who can afford to haul some fat-walleted alien around in a helicopter, can cheat. Total bullshit, IMO. Time to get some new wording and pass a law that levels the playing field.

http://www.huntlra.com/aboutus.htm

PS - any guy whose wife is named "Thor" is a bit weird, IMO! :lol:

Typical of you. Who cheated? The judge found no infraction because the fellow was not hunting. The ministry has a long record of failing to gain convictions due to good lawyers and technicalities, for residents and others.
Also I'm glad to see the fat walleted aliens out there. The money they spend shows the true value of our wildlife. Like Bridger said about the G/O's putting a levy on hunters to fund the ongoing battle of maintaining nonresident access. These guy's are glad to pay. For most on this site the yearly fee's to the BCWF are too much to put in.:lol:

[Ambush]

After some digging around, several years ago, I was under the impression that it WAS legal to drop supplies, by helicopter, and then hike in to them. This is not the same as dropping a hunter and his camp on a sheep mountain. I was cautioned that it was definitely NOT legal to fly in a person who would then subsequently be hunting.

Why would it be any different for a resident to fly in a wall tent, than for a G/O to fly in the supplies to build a cabin that is used for the sole porpuse of hunting?

The hunters still have to be trailed in on horses or hike in.

What about the hunter that is no longer able to pack 60 pounds on his back for 10-15 kilometers, but would be able to hike in to a drop camp?

How much country would you really be opening up?

The Average Joe might make it to the spots you hunt now. But you would be able to make it to those spots just out of their reach.

But you should have the right to shoot any stereo equipment within earshot or rifle rangehttp://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif

Just wondering.

[Fisher-Dude]

It's too bad that Shippmann dick and his wad of yankee blubber are such BAD hunters that they had to resort to a "grey" area of the Act to be "successful" in their hunt. Of course, the greyness just creeps in when a dumbass left wing judge that has no fricken idea what the intent is of the Act lets them off Scot-free, and the Crown Prosecutor is some city slicker that doesn't have a clue about hunting.

Anyone who reads the facts of that case can clearly see they transported a hunter during a hunt by helicopter - the defense simply sucked the judge into not questioning which day was the beginning of the hunt. You can bet your ass that "hunting expedition" started costing fatso the minute he left Ft Nelson, and that's the de facto start of the hunt (the 18th of August). The dopey Crown Prosecutor was too dumb to exploit that fact in the Crown's favour. I'll bet the guiding bill started for Jersey when he got on the helicopter on the 18th and got off it on the 30th. He was on a guided HUNT from the 18th to the 30th.

Ineptitude caused a good law to be struck down.

[boxhitch]

Ineptitude caused a good law to be struck down.
Coupled by the fact the Wildlife Act is written as it is, and doesn't address the intent , or sentiment of most BC residents.

Or does it ?
The same rule would allow my wheel-chair bound friend to get to the top of a mountain for a caribou,sheep,elk or deer hunt. The transport means has nothing to do with the def. of hunting, until wildlife is involved.

Like I said, I don't completely agree, but am open to why the act is worded as it is.

If one prospector uses a helicopter does another mobility-challenged prospector complain ?

[boxhitch]

PS - any guy whose wife is named "Thor" is a bit weird, IMO!
IIRC Thor is the son.

[Fisher-Dude]

IIRC Thor is the son.

You don't RC:


"About Liard River Adventures and Chris and Thor Schippmann

I grew up having a passion for the outdoors. In the mid 80’s I had the opportunity to guide in Northern Alberta as a working vacation. I was hooked! From there I quit my regular full time job and went to guide in Northern British Columbia in 1995. The next year my wife, Thor, decided to join me as a camp cook and wrangler. Well then she was hooked!"

[bridger]

this law was very quietly challenged by an outfitter in region 7b about four years ago. a hunter flew into his base camp by helicopter then to a spike camp by helicopter. he killed a caribou and the outfitter flew the caribou out in a samll plane then hunter then flew back to fort nelson via chopper the co's charged him with using a hellicopter for hunting. there was little publicity about this case locally as the lawyer got a change of venue to smithers. the judge ruled that the hunter while flying in a helicopter was not hunting just traveling and dismissed the charges . the crown appealed to the supreme court of canada where it is still waiting judgement as far as i know am not certain if it has been decided . somewhere in my archives i have a thread to the supreme court file. will post if I can find it.

[Deadshot]

You can bet your ass that "hunting expedition" started costing fatso the minute he left Ft Nelson, and that's the de facto start of the hunt (the 18th of August). The dopey Crown Prosecutor was too dumb to exploit that fact in the Crown's favour. I'll bet the guiding bill started for Jersey when he got on the helicopter on the 18th and got off it on the 30th. He was on a guided HUNT from the 18th to the 30th.


It was my understanding this "fatso" was a shareholder in the outfit. I doubt a guiding bill was even in the mix.

[Deadshot]

this law was very quietly challenged by an outfitter

And keeping it quiet would be in the outfitters best interest, would it not.
Have the advantage of chopper time in the bush, hoping that residents are left in the dark about it. Still not for everyone, as money plays into the equation.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

You guys should stop saying things about questionable GO activity.
Willy442 said it isn't fair or nice;-).

SSS

[goatdancer]

Looks like F&W should get a lawyer to rewrite the definition of hunting and make it more loophole proof. Maybe a 30 page long definition would cover all the "ifs". Now wouldn't that be a joy to try understand. We could have a thread with 6000 posts going.....

[boxhitch]

make it more loophole proof.
Impossible to stump 500 HBC members sitting around waiting for a season to open........any season.......soon.........

[ryanb]

I wish these bozo judges would stop allowing loopholes to be exploited by bozo assholes. The intent of the law is crystal-freaking CLEAR and should be enforced in full.

So maybe you could get away with it with a slick lawyer, but you are absolultely breaking the law, and a good law at that.

PS. I would love to know which helicopter operators are allowing this to take place because every one I know wouldn't transport a hunter in a million years.

[Ambush]

The letter of the law was met, but justice was not served. Big difference between the two.
Judges are only concerned about the letter of the law.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

PS. I would love to know which helicopter operators are allowing this to take place because every one I know wouldn't transport a hunter in a million years.

Maybe they're disguising themselves as "backpack fishermen with a one-way ticket":roll:????

SSS

[boxhitch]

The letter of the law was met, but justice was not served. Big difference between the two.
Judges are only concerned about the letter of the law.Thats what laws are for, to have a final definition for what is right and wrong.
The fact that this one apparently doesn't meet the sentiment of some HBC members, may mean it needs correction. Yapping here won't get that done.
Talk to your club, who talks to your BCWF rep, who talks to the regional BCWF, who takes it to convention, who forwards passed items to committees, who take it up with the Ministry as required. There is a process.

[boxhitch]

The intent of the law is crystal-freaking CLEAR .......Really ? Where is it spelled out ?

[Ambush]

Thats what laws are for, to have a final definition for what is right and wrong.
The fact that this one apparently doesn't meet the sentiment of some HBC members, may mean it needs correction. Yapping here won't get that done.
Talk to your club, who talks to your BCWF rep, who talks to the regional BCWF, who takes it to convention, who forwards passed items to committees, who take it up with the Ministry as required. There is a process.

Boxhitch, thanks for the advice. But all my spare time right now is being spent finding a reliable helicoter pilot. I gave a prospector a ride out of Dease Lake several years ago, that had just returned from two months of hiking the mountains. He showed me on a map, where the most inept bowhunter could easily kill a big Stone and big caribou. They are tame!! I've been aching to go there.

I just need one tight-lipped, reliable partner.

[Deadshot]

I'm thinking Kawdy plateau for two weeks, just me & my argo.:wink: Or is that more than 400 metres off the trail?:eek:

[rgv]

I wish these bozo judges would stop allowing loopholes to be exploited by bozo assholes. The intent of the law is crystal-freaking CLEAR and should be enforced in full.

So maybe you could get away with it with a slick lawyer, but you are absolultely breaking the law, and a good law at that.

PS. I would love to know which helicopter operators are allowing this to take place because every one I know wouldn't transport a hunter in a million years.

legal loopholes and grey areas are there to be exploited, emplaced at the request of those who understand loopholes, and written to dissuade those who do not. A grade five student could identify and clarify that loopole with less than ten words.

As far as helicopter operators, well, if you phone the FtN base and ask if they will cache a hunting camp, odds are you will be told no. If you show up and give them the don't ask, don't tell face, they will smile courteously and ask for a visa imprint and how much fuel they should have on board.

[boxhitch]

I've been aching to go there.

Ah, yes, the old treasure map. Wish I had time to wander.......

[boxhitch]

I'm thinking Kawdy plateau for two weeks, just me & my argo.:wink: Or is that more than 400 metres off the trail?:eek:Is that an issue ?

[riflebuilder]

Interesting reading, what about disabled hunters who can not physically get to the alpine. In some States and Provinces they give permit to shoot from a vehicle for those who can't walk. For these hunters a helicopter would not be the same advantage as it would be to an able bodied hunter. It may be the only chance they could have to shoot something differnt.

[steel_ram]

I'm thinking Kawdy plateau for two weeks, just me & my argo.:wink: Or is that more than 400 metres off the trail?:eek:

Isn't there a bus that goes that goes to Level now?

[Krico]

Interesting reading, what about disabled hunters who can not physically get to the alpine. In some States and Provinces they give permit to shoot from a vehicle for those who can't walk. For these hunters a helicopter would not be the same advantage as it would be to an able bodied hunter. It may be the only chance they could have to shoot something differnt.

That would open up a HUGE can of worms. I can't physically get to some of the places I want to hunt. Maybe I should be allowed a chopper too.

[Wildfoot]

robson helimagic is the only company i know that holds a PUP to land in robson park (7-1) and they are limited to when they can fly. And they are usually booked up in advance. there is almost no hunting opportunities in 7-1. just a little sliver on the west side (swift current cr.) is open to hunting. some moose up there, but there is better places in the robson valley. all the private land in 7-1 is owned by relocated city hippies or grumpy ****ers. good luck getting permission to hunt in there.

nearest airport is 7-2.... but mcbride might have one as well?

[BCrams]

there is almost no hunting opportunities in 7-1. just a little sliver on the west side (swift current cr.) is open to hunting. some moose up there, all the private land in 7-1 is owned by relocated city hippies or grumpy ****ers. good luck getting permission to hunt in there.


Not sure where you're getting your information .....

There is 'no' hunting opportunity in 7-1 period.

[jml11]

there is almost no hunting opportunities in 7-1. just a little sliver on the west side (swift current cr.) is open to hunting. some moose up there, but there is better places in the robson valley.


7-1 is not even listed in the regs, no hunting seasons at all there. The 'sliver' of swift current creek you are refering to is actually in 7-3 I believe, even though it is in Mount Robson Park (at least according to the regs). It appears there is no access into this area, maybe by horse?