Proof of sex and deboning

[Mulehahn]

Do not want to hijack another thread, and I couldn't find any specific to this in a search. We all hunt for the meat, and want to respect the animal so my question is this - How do you DEBONE an animal in the field while keeping proof of sex, species, and the head if there is are antler restrictions in place, attached? I am clear on the regulations and what is necessary, as such I try to take my animals out as whole as possible then hang and skin them back at camp, leaving proof on all parts, to cool. But I do not debone them until I am home. But with this warmer septembers and octobers we have been having I would like to know how.

[oldschoolguy]

someone's sig says that proof of sex means you need a pic you you pleasuring your deer

[averagejoe]

you just got to hide the meat in your dry box or under a tarp till you get home.. if they see the antlers just say you allready brought the meat in .
best you can do.

[JCVD]

4Anyone who possesses or transports the
carcass or part of the carcass of the follow-
ing animals must leave naturally attached
to the carcass or one part of the carcass in
the person’s possession the following listed
parts:
(1) For elk, moose, and deer :
(a) If the animal is male, either
(i) that portion of the head which
bears the antlers, OR
(ii) both a testicle or part of the penis,
AND the animal’s tail or another
readily identifiable part of the hide
not less than 6 cm2
.
(b) If the animal is female, either
(i) that portion of the head which in
males normally bears antlers, OR
(ii) both a portion of the udder or teats
AND the animal’s tail or another
readily identifiable part of the hide
not less than 6 cm2

Seems pretty self explanatory doesn't it? :confused: Keep the head portion.

[GoatGuy]

keep the balls on one hind quarter hair on, a patch of hair on each of the other quarters and cut the antlers off if you're hunting in an antler restricted season, a bone saw works, axe works faster.

[mcrae]

you just got to hide the meat in your dry box or under a tarp till you get home.. if they see the antlers just say you allready brought the meat in .
best you can do.

I hope your kidding:confused:

[mark]

So what if we pack our meat out 100% boneless???? Are we supposed to leave hair and balls attached to a chunk of meat????
And if so how big does that chunk of meat need to be???

[averagejoe]

I hope your kidding:confused:

works for me.


So what if we pack our meat out 100% boneless???? Are we supposed to leave hair and balls attached to a chunk of meat????
And if so how big does that chunk of meat need to be???

see my above post

[pitbell]

Are we supposed to leave hair and balls attached to a chunk of meat????



Yup. It sucks Mark but thats exactly what you have to do.
Averagejoe, your obviously the last person that should be giving advice on the subject. Maybe stop typing now:wink:.

[mark]

Yup. It sucks Mark but thats exactly what you have to do.
Averagejoe, your obviously the last person that should be giving advice on the subject. Maybe stop typing now:wink:.


Ok Pitbull, answer my next question!

[pitbell]

Beats me??
All I know is that I have had to dig through my deboned meat more than a few times to show a C.O a set of hairy boys.

[huntcoop]

4Anyone who possesses or transports the
carcass or part of the carcass of the follow-
ing animals must leave naturally attached
to the carcass or one part of the carcass in
the person’s possession the following listed
parts:
(1) For elk, moose, and deer :
(a) If the animal is male, either
(i) that portion of the head which
bears the antlers, OR
(ii) both a testicle or part of the penis,
AND the animal’s tail or another
readily identifiable part of the hide
not less than 6 cm2
.
(b) If the animal is female, either
(i) that portion of the head which in
males normally bears antlers, OR
(ii) both a portion of the udder or teats
AND the animal’s tail or another
readily identifiable part of the hide
not less than 6 cm2

Seems pretty self explanatory doesn't it? :confused: Keep the head portion.

The above is the grey area.

[JCVD]

The above is the grey area.

Not sure why it would be grey though....its pretty clear. DO one or the other. Keep the part of the head that the antlers are attached to..or leave a patch of skin with the nuts/unit on it on the deboned hindquarter. heck if you feel like it do both. I usually just saw off the skull plate w/ the horns or lack of attached. I have been stopped, never had a problem.

[huntcoop]

Not sure why it would be grey though....its pretty clear. DO one or the other. Keep the part of the head that the antlers are attached to..or leave a patch of skin with the nuts/unit on it on the deboned hindquarter. heck if you feel like it do both. I usually just saw off the skull plate w/ the horns or lack of attached. I have been stopped, never had a problem.

That's my point, the right hand doesn't know what the left had is doing. Case and point, we were hunting last week and shot our mule deer. All were skinned, boned and game bagged, no hair or genitals were left but the antlers were removed with plenty of skull and hair along with the eyes, nose, upper jaw etc...

My buddy was pulled over and given a warning for not having any sex organs or hair attached to the meat. He explained that we as a group had done what we thought was right but he still issued a ticket.

[GoatGuy]

So what if we pack our meat out 100% boneless???? Are we supposed to leave hair and balls attached to a chunk of meat????
And if so how big does that chunk of meat need to be???

just one patch of hair on each quarter, the rest of it can be on its own.

[BiG Boar]

If I am quartering a point restricted animal.

Does a hair patch need to be attached to each quarter or just 1 of them?

Do you need to keep proof of sex attached to a quarter or will the antlers on the skull plate work?

[mcrae]

works for me.



see my above post

Except that your commiting an offense when you lie to a co. You are in fact telling people on an open forum to break the law. If you have an animal hidden in your dry box or under a tarp and then lie to a CO about well good luck with than........

[averagejoe]

Except that your commiting an offense when you lie to a co. You are in fact telling people on an open forum to break the law. If you have an animal hidden in your dry box or under a tarp and then lie to a CO about well good luck with than........


i think they have better things to worrie about then some guy that dosnt leave his nuts on a legally harvested animal. its not hurting anyone.

[mcrae]

i think they have better things to worrie about then some guy that dosnt leave his nuts on a legally harvested animal. its not hurting anyone.


Fact remains you are admitting to and suggesting that others break the law on an open forum.

[high and to the right]

You only need to leave a nut sack (or udder)along with a small patch of hair (to identify it as an elk, moose, deer) attached to one quarter of meat. It can be deboned or bone left in as long as the proof of sex and hair identifier is there naturally, meaning it wasn't cut off and then sowed back on but rather was skinned around so it is still attached the way it was when it was alive. In the case of a certain size rack (3 pt, 4 pt, fork etc), you need to keep the rack attached to the skull plate and bring it with you. You don't need the head, just the skull plate and antlers. You can't cut off each side of the antler from the skull plate and just bring them not attached to the skull plate. In an open season where any size rack is OK you don't need the rack, just the sack. With the udder you don't need the head of the animal.

[kishman]

Debone your animal as usual, just keep the skull cap with the antlers attached.

[ARC]

In the case of a certain size rack (3 pt, 4 pt, fork etc), you need to keep the rack attached to the skull plate and bring it with you. You don't need the head, just the skull plate and antlers. You can't cut off each side of the antler from the skull plate and just bring them not attached to the skull plate.

This makes sense, but where in the regs does it actually say you need to have the rack if there is a point restriction? I know it makes sense, however I quickly read through the transportation requirements one day and didnt see it anywhere.

I was running low on space in my vehicle one time and was going to get a buddy to transport an elk head for me. However, there was a 6 pt requirement and I thought the rack needed to stay with the meat, so I made it fit. Afterwards, I could not find in the regs where it states this.

It seems like common sense, however leaving a beard on a turkey during a bearded only season seems to make sense....but I think you only need to leave a wing on.

[high and to the right]

The regulations we have in the synopsis are just a portion of what is contained in the wildlife act. It is not mentioned in the synopsis and I haven't read the whole wildlife act but a CO that I talked to said that I must retain proof of my kill. That's when he stressed the importance of the antlers attached to the skull cap. He may have been blowing smoke but ... it made sense. If my rack is a trophy I want to keep it. If it's small it's not too much of a burden to carry it out and then toss it later. When my elk rack was stolen a couple of years ago the CO came to our camp to verify the kill, look at our pictures and give me a paper stating that I was exempt from transporting the elk without the proper evidence. If the rack is too large to bring out intack, you can break it in two as long as the skull cap is attached to the antlers and the two sides match up.

[high and to the right]

I was running low on space in my vehicle one time and was going to get a buddy to transport an elk head for me. However, there was a 6 pt requirement and I thought the rack needed to stay with the meat, so I made it fit. Afterwards, I could not find in the regs where it states this.

I.

I missed this point on my last post. This is my opinion, not sure on this one but ... You can have someone else haul your meat out or your head or what ever as long as you fill in the form in the synopsis (or facsimily there of) stating that this person is transporting your meat/head/quarter/etc. from one place to another. That way if either of your are stopped they can verify the story independently. So you could have let the other person take your rack but the point is that you have a verifiable animal part to match your cancelled tag.

[dana]

So a question to you guys that ignore the big OR in the regs. If you are keeping both the skull plate and the nuts, how big does the chunk of meat attached to the nuts need to be? Is a fist size big enough? What about a loonie size? Or maybe it has to be a Watermelon size? Is there somewhere in the Wildlife ACT where it states the size? I can't find it anywhere. I can find the big OR and that is what I go by. Antlers with skull plate and a pack full of deboned chunks of meat.

[mod7rem]

It states that the portion or the head bearing the antlers has to be naturally attached to the carcass. When I debone, I leave the nut sack on the hind quater with a patch of hair and that is it. I wouldnt always go by what a CO says unless I read it myself. A friend of mine, who is an experienced elk hunter and float plane pilot, went on there annual fly in elk trip a few years ago. His brothers always look to him for the rules and they questioned the 3 pt elk season. He wanted to be sure so he phoned the CO and asked about whether they were allowed to shoot any bull elk 3 pt's or bigger. The CO told him that it is a 3pt only season and that the population couldnt sustain shooting any bull 3 pt's or bigger. When he got back they had shot 1 3pt elk and passed up many 4's & 5's. I laughed at him and told him to read the regs and not let somebody screw him like that.

[Mulehahn]

Thanks for the reply, but this raises another question for me. What is stop a poacher from harvesting 2 animals, keeping the skull plate from one and filling game bags with deboned meat and saying it was a really "healthy" animal? To me, atleast with the animal only quartered you can pretty much tell it was only one animal. I went out this this past week and saw a HUGE muley doe. Easily bigger then even any buck I have seen to date. If that was deboned I wouldn't be able to tell if it was to one animal or two small spikers.

[LeverActionJunkie]

So a question to you guys that ignore the big OR in the regs. If you are keeping both the skull plate and the nuts, how big does the chunk of meat attached to the nuts need to be? Is a fist size big enough? What about a loonie size? Or maybe it has to be a Watermelon size? Is there somewhere in the Wildlife ACT where it states the size? I can't find it anywhere. I can find the big OR and that is what I go by. Antlers with skull plate and a pack full of deboned chunks of meat.

+1 That's what I've done in the past. Father in law spent 28yrs with the CO's and he always jokes about the number of guys he's stopped who remembered things like hairy nuts on their meat but forgot a loaded rifle or to sign and fill out the first page of their license.

[Fisher-Dude]

you just got to hide the meat in your dry box or under a tarp till you get home.. if they see the antlers just say you allready brought the meat in .
best you can do.

Offences:




15 (1) In subsection (2), "deer" means mule (black-tailed) deer, white-tailed deer and fallow deer.
(2) For the purpose of section 36 of the Act, a person who possesses the whole carcass or part of a carcass of an elk, moose or deer must leave naturally attached to the carcass or one part of the carcass in the person's possession
(a) if the animal was male, either
(i) that portion of the head that bears the antlers, or
(ii) both
(A) a testicle or part of the penis, and
(B) the animal's tail or another readily identifiable part of the hide not less than 6 cm2

33 (2) A person commits an offence if the person has dead wildlife or a part of any wildlife in his or her possession except as authorized under a licence or permit or as provided by regulation.

36 (1) A person who possesses the carcass of any wildlife, whether or not the carcass has been divided, without leaving attached the parts required by regulation to be left attached, commits an offence.

(2) Subsection (1) only applies until the earlier of the following:
(a) the carcass is given to a meatcutter or the owner or operator of a cold storage plant to be recorded in accordance with section 71,
(b) the carcass arrives at the person's normal dwelling place and is butchered and stored there for consumption on the premises, or
(c) the carcass is presented to an employee of the ministry for which the minister is responsible or other person specified by the Lieutenant Governor in Council for inspection.

38 A person who fails, on the request of an officer, to state correctly the locality where and the date on which wildlife or fish in the person's possession was killed, taken or caught by the person or came into his or her possession, commits an offence.




Unbelievable how moronic the attitude really is.

[Fisher-Dude]

This makes sense, but where in the regs does it actually say you need to have the rack if there is a point restriction? I know it makes sense, however I quickly read through the transportation requirements one day and didnt see it anywhere.

I was running low on space in my vehicle one time and was going to get a buddy to transport an elk head for me. However, there was a 6 pt requirement and I thought the rack needed to stay with the meat, so I made it fit. Afterwards, I could not find in the regs where it states this.

It seems like common sense, however leaving a beard on a turkey during a bearded only season seems to make sense....but I think you only need to leave a wing on.

It's in the regional sections of teh Hunting Regulation of the Wildlife Act, for each species with restrictions. For example:

Deer

1 (1) and (2) Repealed.
(3) Repealed. [B.C. Reg. 180/96, s. 22 (a).]
(4) A person commits an offence if the person kills a mule (black-tailed) deer buck
(a) in M.U.s 3-12 to 3-14, 3-17 to 3-20, 3-26 to 3-31 and 3-34 to 3-44 from September 10 to September 30, or from November 1 to December 10, or
(b) in M.U. 3-46 from September 20 to September 30, or from November 1 to December 10, or
(c) in M.U.s 3-15, 3-16, 3-32 and 3-33 from September 1 to September 9, or from September 10 to September 30, or from November 1 to December 10,
unless the buck has at least one antler which has at least 4 points (tines) not including the brow tine.
[B](5) A person commits an offence where he or she kills a mule (black-tailed) deer buck as described in subsections (4), (6) and (7) and does not, while returning from hunting, keep the antlers of the deer and the species licence under which the animal was killed, together and available for inspection by an officer.

And then, under S 36 of the Wildlife Act:

36 (1) A person who possesses the carcass of any wildlife, whether or not the carcass has been divided, without leaving attached the parts required by regulation to be left attached, commits an offence.
(2) Subsection (1) only applies until the earlier of the following:
(a) the carcass is given to a meatcutter or the owner or operator of a cold storage plant to be recorded in accordance with section 71,
(b) the carcass arrives at the person's normal dwelling place and is butchered and stored there for consumption on the premises, or
(c) the carcass is presented to an employee of the ministry for which the minister is responsible or other person specified by the Lieutenant Governor in Council for inspection.

[quadrakid]

If you look in the regs you will find a small box that says that you must keep the antlers if there are point restrictions.You must have proof of sex for all hunts,in the case of bulls or bucks that means some genitalia attatched to a part of the critter or the horns attatched to a quarter or front quarters.Horns on the skull plate are not proof. With all due respect to Dana that is what the co,s want and that is what you should do to not get in a big hassle at a gamecheck. If you want to go to court and prove that the regs aren,t clear,i,m with Dana on some of his points and i think you could beat the rap. Regs are obviously not clear enough or we would not have so many threads on this subject.

[Bistchen]

Debone your animal as usual, just keep the skull cap with the antlers attached.

Thanks for keeping things simple Kishman. You said all that needs to be said.

[Fisher-Dude]

So a question to you guys that ignore the big OR in the regs. If you are keeping both the skull plate and the nuts, how big does the chunk of meat attached to the nuts need to be? Is a fist size big enough? What about a loonie size? Or maybe it has to be a Watermelon size? Is there somewhere in the Wildlife ACT where it states the size? I can't find it anywhere. I can find the big OR and that is what I go by. Antlers with skull plate and a pack full of deboned chunks of meat.

There's nothing specific. Just try being reasonable, if that's possible. A 2" section of dink (multiply the length of yours by 2 and you'll get an idea of "reasonable" :mrgreen: ) on the hind, plus a little 6 cm2 patch of fur, and you're going to be judged as acting prudently should you ever be questioned.

Why anyone would do otherwise is beyond me. Why the hell do people go looking for fights with COs by pushing the envelope? And then, those same people with that go f yourself attitude wonder why some COs don't take their bullshit and write them a ticket for a broken taillight. :?

[Fisher-Dude]

Thanks for keeping things simple Kishman. You said all that needs to be said.

No he didn't. You need nuts and hair if you remove the head from the animal.

[ARC]

I hunt solo about 90% of the time and usually harvest game a fair distance from the vehicle. I also don't own a quad for easy retrieval.

I fully debone nearly every animal I shoot. With a deer I generally end up with 3 or 4 bags filled with chunks of meat. I try to leave the nuts and junk attached to a fairly large junk of meat, on a deer usually the size of a football or so. I also pack out the antlers with the skull plate.

I think this is more than enough. When guys shoot sheep 15km back, do they leave the nuts attached for the hike out? I believe sheep and deer have the same transportation requirements.

[Mountain Man]

I killed a bull elk last year that needed to be deboned in order to pack out and as other have mentioned what I did was leave a 1" x 1" patch of hide on the large pieces of meat. Backstraps, tenderloins, neck meat and any small piece of meat where all just put in meat sacks. On the one hind quarter you want to leave pecker or nut one or the other will do. The antlers and skull where detached.

-Trim all large portions off leaving a 1" x 1" hide attached.

-Head can be detached just check regulations ! Each animal as certain things that must come out in the case of a compalsary inspection.

-Keep sex attached to one hind quarter of meat.

I bet u-tube would demonstrate some different methods of de boning to help understand the different cuts to make.

Hope this helps.

[scott h]

Not to muddy the waters any further, but it did say until it is shown to a person employed by the ministry. Can I take that to mean that I can go to the nearest CO's and get them to varify my animal and then it would be legal to cut bag and freeze it before I got to my "normal place of residence".
It sounds like I'm just tryiing to stir up a hornets nest but this very thing has come up before on long hunts up north when it's been very warm and we were staying for a few more weeks. We had freezing/butchering capabilities and were staying at my cottage in the Charlottes. Tryiing to keep them cold but not frozen was a royal pain in the ass !!! The info on boning out is way better than what we did but when do you go from boning to butchering in the eyes of the law.

[dana]

It all boils down to the question "What is a carcus?" and the Wildlife Act has not defined that. If you believe the carcus to be a quarter, why do you believe that? There was talk on here before that the head itself is not part of the carcus and it needs to be attached to a quarter to be legal. Really? Who comes up with this Bullshit? Obviously some Road Hunter like FD who has never ever brought a critter home in pieces. My question reagarding size of meat attached to the nuts is a legit question. Is a chunk of meat considered 'the carcus'. This really isn't a big deal when dealing with the smaller critters like deer or even immature moose. It really becomes a issue when you have a BIG bull moose that died in an absolute hellhole. While the quad guys like FD pride themselves on getting their game out on a quad, the fact is, many are indeed breaking the law just getting the quad to the dead moose. Our wetlands are now protected against such abuse, yet many hunters still take their quads out in the meadow complexs for ease of game retrieval. Getting a full big moose quarter onto a quad with the nuts attached ain't that hard. Putting that full quarter with nuts attached onto your back and packing it out, is something different all together. For the law abiding hunter who does the right thing and packs it out on his back, he's doomed because of this delima of the Nuts. The quad guy screws the meadow for years to come but he's safe because the CO's at the game check on the highway don't know where he took his quad.

[Fisher-Dude]

Not to muddy the waters any further, but it did say until it is shown to a person employed by the ministry. Can I take that to mean that I can go to the nearest CO's and get them to varify my animal and then it would be legal to cut bag and freeze it before I got to my "normal place of residence".
It sounds like I'm just tryiing to stir up a hornets nest but this very thing has come up before on long hunts up north when it's been very warm and we were staying for a few more weeks. We had freezing/butchering capabilities and were staying at my cottage in the Charlottes. Tryiing to keep them cold but not frozen was a royal pain in the ass !!! The info on boning out is way better than what we did but when do you go from boning to butchering in the eyes of the law.

Yes, a CO will give you a written verification if you ask for it. Then you can cut 'em up. :wink:

[dana]

Not to muddy the waters any further, but it did say until it is shown to a person employed by the ministry. Can I take that to mean that I can go to the nearest CO's and get them to varify my animal and then it would be legal to cut bag and freeze it before I got to my "normal place of residence".
It sounds like I'm just tryiing to stir up a hornets nest but this very thing has come up before on long hunts up north when it's been very warm and we were staying for a few more weeks. We had freezing/butchering capabilities and were staying at my cottage in the Charlottes. Tryiing to keep them cold but not frozen was a royal pain in the ass !!! The info on boning out is way better than what we did but when do you go from boning to butchering in the eyes of the law.

If you have a cottage, I'm pretty sure you'd be paying property taxes on it so therefore it probably falls under 'residence'.

[ARC]

It all boils down to the question "What is a carcus?" and the Wildlife Act has not defined that. If you believe the carcus to be a quarter, why do you believe that? There was talk on here before that the head itself is not part of the carcus and it needs to be attached to a quarter to be legal. Really? Who comes up with this Bullshit? Obviously some Road Hunter like FD who has never ever brought a critter home in pieces. My question reagarding size of meat attached to the nuts is a legit question. Is a chunk of meat considered 'the carcus'. This really isn't a big deal when dealing with the smaller critters like deer or even immature moose. It really becomes a issue when you have a BIG bull moose that died in an absolute hellhole. While the quad guys like FD pride themselves on getting their game out on a quad, the fact is, many are indeed breaking the law just getting the quad to the dead moose. Our wetlands are now protected against such abuse, yet many hunters still take their quads out in the meadow complexs for ease of game retrieval. Getting a full big moose quarter onto a quad with the nuts attached ain't that hard. Putting that full quarter with nuts attached onto your back and packing it out, is something different all together. For the law abiding hunter who does the right thing and packs it out on his back, he's doomed because of this delima of the Nuts. The quad guy screws the meadow for years to come but he's safe because the CO's at the game check on the highway don't know where he took his quad.

Like I stated earlier, sheep have the same requirements. Could you imagine having to pack out your sheep in quarters??

[JDR]

It all boils down to the question "What is a carcus?" and the Wildlife Act has not defined that. If you believe the carcus to be a quarter, why do you believe that? There was talk on here before that the head itself is not part of the carcus and it needs to be attached to a quarter to be legal. Really? Who comes up with this Bullshit?

If no definition is provided then the law usually reverts to the ordinary dictionary definition. The dictionary definition of "carcass" is the dead body of an animal. I would assume this to mean the entire body and not part thereof. I would say a quarter is a part thereof and I would also say that the head is a part thereof.

[RayHill]

So a question to you guys that ignore the big OR in the regs. If you are keeping both the skull plate and the nuts, how big does the chunk of meat attached to the nuts need to be? Is a fist size big enough? What about a loonie size? Or maybe it has to be a Watermelon size? Is there somewhere in the Wildlife ACT where it states the size? I can't find it anywhere. I can find the big OR and that is what I go by. Antlers with skull plate and a pack full of deboned chunks of meat.


This guy is right you guys have to get a copy of the Regs and turn to page 20. Read the middle paragraph at the top of the page and see the big OR on the 10th line down. If there is any confusion after that there is no hope. Maybe try read it again and again and again?:confused::confused::confused: Light bulb?

[dana]

.
Why anyone would do otherwise is beyond me. Why the hell do people go looking for fights with COs by pushing the envelope? And then, those same people with that go f yourself attitude wonder why some COs don't take their bullshit and write them a ticket for a broken taillight. :?

And yet there are some that sit on the fence and don't know which way to go. On one hand they say you are pushing the envelope if you shoot a buck with 4 points excluding the eyeguard because one of those 4 points doesn't grow in a conventional manner, yet in the same breath they recommend the shooting of bull moose with big paddles that happen to be broke on one side making that side a spike/fork? Who's pushing the envelope eh? You don't think a broken bull isn't going to throw up red flags to any CO? If one guy follows the rules as laid out in both the regs and the Wildlife Act, why is he deemed to be pushing the envelope? And because he is vocal about knowing the law, he is deemed to be a lawbreaker in all aspects of his life including his driving abilities? LMAO! The funny thing is FD, you've probably never met a more law abiding person.

[Jelvis]

I think the reason for leaving the testicles attached is so someone can't take them and put them in with some cow moose meat and say it was a bull.
If the head has antlers and is on a carcass than it's obvious but if there is a pile of moose meat with some hairy balls laying separately it could be an antlerless and some other bulls balls.
Jel ( Attached is the key word ) Kinda like your cross dressing ritual, who really knows? lol

[JCVD]

That's my point, the right hand doesn't know what the left had is doing. Case and point, we were hunting last week and shot our mule deer. All were skinned, boned and game bagged, no hair or genitals were left but the antlers were removed with plenty of skull and hair along with the eyes, nose, upper jaw etc...

My buddy was pulled over and given a warning for not having any sex organs or hair attached to the meat. He explained that we as a group had done what we thought was right but he still issued a ticket.

I getcha now. I would fight that personally. Thats just plain wrong.

[mark]

Yes, a CO will give you a written verification if you ask for it. Then you can cut 'em up. :wink:

What the hell???
I have never done this in my life.....many dozens of animals I either take to the butcher, or take home and butcher myself!
Lately my animals are coming out in backpacks 100% boneless, no quarters to speak of!
What part of this is wrong or illegal??
If I have to leave a nut stuck to some meat, I need to know exactly how big that piece of meat needs to be!
I believe Ive asked this twice already, as has Dana, and nobody knows???

[JCVD]

No he didn't. You need nuts and hair if you remove the head from the animal.

Where exactly do you get this from? The regs state nothing at all about that absolute. It makes sense, but is not clear and is not stated anywhere.

[moosinaround]

4Anyone who possesses or transports the
carcass or part of the carcass of the following
animals must leave naturally attached
to the carcass or one part of the carcass in
the person’s possession the following listed
parts:
(1) For elk, moose, and deer:
(a) If the animal is male, either
(i) that portion of the head which
bears the antlers, OR
(ii) both a testicle or part of the penis,
AND the animal’s tail or another
readily identifiable part of the hide
not less than 6 cm2.
(b) If the animal is female, either
(i) that portion of the head which in
males normally bears antlers, OR
(ii) both a portion of the udder or teats,
AND the animal’s tail or another
readily identifiable part of the hide
not less than 6 cm2.

Is this the paragraph?? Moosin

[mcrae]

Where exactly do you get this from? The regs state nothing at all about that absolute. It makes sense, but is not clear and is not stated anywhere.

Dig up the old thread we had about Aug? A few of is us sent emails to them and we got emails back telling us if we remove head it doesn't count as proof of sex, we must leave evidence of sex naturally attached to carcass. This has been talked to death and I just do what they want.

If I bone out an animal I leave the quarters more or less whole so its a big chunk of meat with a nut attached.

If you have a big bag of meat with no evidence of sex and a set of antlers sitting on the bag you will get a ticket from the CO's. I am not going to argue the "grey" areas becasue I agree they are very vague but this is what the working CO's are enforcing and what the ministry has told them to enforce.

[Fisher-Dude]

People have to ask themselves, "What is reasonable?" We can't write laws that take every nuance of every situation, and explain it in detail because some Perry Mason wannabe feels he can fight it in court on a "technicality." Believe me, in a real court of law, the judge considers what is reasonable and applies it to what you've done. What you guys have all seen on TV ain't what really happens in court, in case you thought otherwise.

For example, we all know it is illegal to jaywalk, but if you step outside the line of a crosswalk to let an old duffer on a scooter past, you're being reasonable, and not breaking a law. We can't write a jaywalking bylaw that says "Stay in the crosswalk or you'll get a ticket, unless you step to the side to let an old duffer by that is 66 years 12 days and 14 minutes old or older, or unless there is a pile of dog shit from a dog over 26.4 kgs in the way, or..."

Apply what is reasonable, and you'll be fine. You all should realize that a 3 lb chunk of hind with the balls and a patch of hair in your boneless meat bag is fine. You should also know that a speck of meat the size of a pinhead on a detached nut sack is not fine.

Use your heads and act reasonably - your mother won't always be there to do your thinking for you.

[Jelvis]

The dood abides ... Doooood

[JCVD]

Dig up the old thread we had about Aug? A few of is us sent emails to them and we got emails back telling us if we remove head it doesn't count as proof of sex, we must leave evidence of sex naturally attached to carcass. This has been talked to death and I just do what they want.

If I bone out an animal I leave the quarters more or less whole so its a big chunk of meat with a nut attached.

If you have a big bag of meat with no evidence of sex and a set of antlers sitting on the bag you will get a ticket from the CO's. I am not going to argue the "grey" areas becasue I agree they are very vague but this is what the working CO's are enforcing and what the ministry has told them to enforce.

I never read the thread, but have been stopped and checked by Co's before. It was all good. You should not HAVE to contact a Co to explain them to you. If it is not stated clearly in the regs it is not a law, period. The head is literally part of the carcass that has been removed by definition. The opinions of any officer are moot unless they can show from the law that they are correct. Some co's and cops think you need to have a triggerlock on your rifle when you transport it. Until you show them the actual written material. It would never hold up in court.

[dana]

People have to ask themselves, "What is reasonable?" We can't write laws that take every nuance of every situation, and explain it in detail because some Perry Mason wannabe feels he can fight it in court on a "technicality." Believe me, in a real court of law, the judge considers what is reasonable and applies it to what you've done. What you guys have all seen on TV ain't what really happens in court, in case you thought otherwise.

For example, we all know it is illegal to jaywalk, but if you step outside the line of a crosswalk to let an old duffer on a scooter past, you're being reasonable, and not breaking a law. We can't write a jaywalking bylaw that says "Stay in the crosswalk or you'll get a ticket, unless you step to the side to let an old duffer by that is 66 years 12 days and 14 minutes old or older, or unless there is a pile of dog shit from a dog over 26.4 kgs in the way, or..."

Apply what is reasonable, and you'll be fine. You all should realize that a 3 lb chunk of hind with the balls and a patch of hair in your boneless meat bag is fine. You should also know that a speck of meat the size of a pinhead on a detached nut sack is not fine.

Use your heads and act reasonably - your mother won't always be there to do your thinking for you.


If you go back to that thread in Aug where some ministry guy was sending out some emails, reasonable was no where in the conversation. If I shoot a big muley and pack out the entire head with cape, according to that guy, I am breaking the law. According to him, the head must be attached to a quarter. So to use your reasonable argument on with the balls attached to a 3 lb chuck of meat, I don't think that would fly with the guy who sent out that email, as a nuts are not attached to the quarter. If he did accept the 3 lb of chuck of meat, he should also accept the head with 3 pounds of neck meat should he not? But noooo, he said the head has to be naturally attached to a quarter. Throws reasonability out the door don't it?

[JCVD]

If you go back to that thread in Aug where some ministry guy was sending out some emails, reasonable was no where in the conversation. If I shoot a big muley and pack out the entire head with cape, according to that guy, I am breaking the law. According to him, the head must be attached to a quarter. So to use your reasonable argument on with the balls attached to a 3 lb chuck of meat, I don't think that would fly with the guy who sent out that email, as a nuts are not attached to the quarter. If he did accept the 3 lb of chuck of meat, he should also accept the head with 3 pounds of neck meat should he not? But noooo, he said the head has to be naturally attached to a quarter. Throws reasonability out the door don't it?

Exactly. Naturally attached, by definition means not removed by any means and reattached unnaturally. Like screwing sheds on the skull of a doe. Naturally being attached to it, a carcass (dead body) or a part of the (dead body eg; head,skull plate) should be good to go. Since they already use a term of measurement for other rules (6cm) they should have a set size/part definition if this was not true.

[mcrae]

I never read the thread, but have been stopped and checked by Co's before. It was all good. You should not HAVE to contact a Co to explain them to you. If it is not stated clearly in the regs it is not a law, period. The head is literally part of the carcass that has been removed by definition. The opinions of any officer are moot unless they can show from the law that they are correct. Some co's and cops think you need to have a triggerlock on your rifle when you transport it. Until you show them the actual written material. It would never hold up in court.

It was not the CO's we contacted it was Victoria. I will see if I can find the email and post it in the am for you.

If you remove the head it is not naturally attached to the carcass anymore and evidence of sex is required on the pieces. Prevents people from taking a head with antlers and throwing it onto a cow and claiming it as a bull...

Maybe it was different in years past but this is the way its being enforced right now by the CO's.

I hate the, " I talked to the CO heresy comments" but I talked to a CO:-D last week and he told me the same thing. If head is removed leave the nuts on and some fur or its a ticket...

[mcrae]

If you go back to that thread in Aug where some ministry guy was sending out some emails, reasonable was no where in the conversation. If I shoot a big muley and pack out the entire head with cape, according to that guy, I am breaking the law. According to him, the head must be attached to a quarter. So to use your reasonable argument on with the balls attached to a 3 lb chuck of meat, I don't think that would fly with the guy who sent out that email, as a nuts are not attached to the quarter. If he did accept the 3 lb of chuck of meat, he should also accept the head with 3 pounds of neck meat should he not? But noooo, he said the head has to be naturally attached to a quarter. Throws reasonability out the door don't it?

I don't get what the big deal is leave the nuts on a big chunk? You seem to be making this allot more difficult than it needs to be. I realize you and FD have history but lots of young guys on HBC will read these threads and your comments are/will make it confusing for some of these newbies that are lurking....

I agree with what your saying its a terrible shade of grey but the simple fact is right now the CO's will nail you with a ticket if you have detached the head and antlers and leave no evidence of sex naturally attached to the carcass or chunks...

[JCVD]

It was not the CO's we contacted it was Victoria. I will see if I can find the email and post it in the am for you.

If you remove the head it is not naturally attached to the carcass anymore and evidence of sex is required on the pieces. Prevents people from taking a head with antlers and throwing it onto a cow and claiming it as a bull...

Maybe it was different in years past but this is the way its being enforced right now by the CO's.

I hate the, " I talked to the CO heresy comments" but I talked to a CO:-D last week and he told me the same thing. If head is removed leave the nuts on and some fur or its a ticket...

The regs state that the horns must be attached to the carcass or a portion. Not the head itself. They are wrong and not all Co's concur obviously lol. It would be a lot les confusing for all hunters if it was just amended and the "OR" taken out.

[Fisher-Dude]

It was not the CO's we contacted it was Victoria. I will see if I can find the email and post it in the am for you.

If you remove the head it is not naturally attached to the carcass anymore and evidence of sex is required on the pieces. Prevents people from taking a head with antlers and throwing it onto a cow and claiming it as a bull...

Maybe it was different in years past but this is the way its being enforced right now by the CO's.

I hate the, " I talked to the CO heresy comments" but I talked to a CO:-D last week and he told me the same thing. If head is removed leave the nuts on and some fur or its a ticket...

The guy who sets the rules is Steve McIver. He KNOWS what the rules are, as he writes the laws for the Ministry, and he says if you cut the head off, you need hair and balls.

Mcrae is right. It's not that difficult to follow the law.

Yes, dana, you would be breaking the law if you didn't leave nuts and hair on if you caped a buck out and cut off the head.

[mcrae]

The regs state that the horns must be attached to the carcass or a portion. Not the head itself. They are wrong and not all Co's concur obviously lol. It would be a lot les confusing for all hunters if it was just amended and the "OR" taken out.

Okay if you remove the head or antlers from the dead animal you have shot you need to leave evidence of sex attached to the animal. Its pretty simple stuff.

If you cut off the antlers and leave the skull cap on and throw it on the bag of meat with no evidence of sex left "naturally" attached you will be given a ticket by the CO's...

Basically the only way you can remove the junk is if you are taking the animal out whole in one piece...... becasue the head which bears the antlers is naturally attached...

[JCVD]

The guy who sets the rules is Steve McIver. He KNOWS what the rules are, as he writes the laws for the Ministry, and he says if you cut the head off, you need hair and balls.

Mcrae is right. It's not that difficult to follow the law.

Yes, dana, you would be breaking the law if you didn't leave nuts and hair on if you caped a buck out and cut off the head.

Show proof of that statement from the law itself. That reasoning would never hold up in front of a judge because it is not there. You are wrong as well i'm afraid. Until the wording is changed it is not only misleading but fairly entrapping as well. Show it to a judge and see what they say.

[mcrae]

The guy who sets the rules is Steve McIver. He KNOWS what the rules are, as he writes the laws for the Ministry, and he says if you cut the head off, you need hair and balls.

Mcrae is right. It's not that difficult to follow the law.

Yes, dana, you would be breaking the law if you didn't leave nuts and hair on if you caped a buck out and cut off the head.

Thanks FD that is the guy that I emailed on numerous occasions about this as well as talking to several local Co's. I ran many different scenarios past them and both camps said exactly the same thing to me.

[JCVD]

Okay if you remove the head or antlers from the dead animal you have shot you need to leave evidence of sex attached to the animal. Its pretty simple stuff.

If you cut off the antlers and leave the skull cap on and throw it on the bag of meat with no evidence of sex left "naturally" attached you will be given a ticket by the CO's...

Basically the only way you can remove the junk is if you are taking the animal out whole in one piece...... becasue the head which bears the antlers is naturally attached...

I understand that that is what you and others believe, including some co's , but it is not correct according to the wording. Perhaps a letter should go to this guy explaining that clarification or an absolute be written for everyone to understand clearly, because not all hunters in BC frequent this forum, if indeed it was what the intended law was meant to accomplish.

[Joel]

The Regs are a little contradictory in a few area's, however they are NOT THE LAW! They a a synopsis written in laymans terms for the general hunting public to use as guidelines.
The $230 ticket we recieved for not leaving balls on an 11 point moose we packed out for two days taught us that.
Should we dispute the ticket? The court will be held in Fort Nelson.

[JCVD]

The Regs are a little contradictory in a few area's, however they are NOT THE LAW! They a a synopsis written in laymans terms for the general hunting public to use as guidelines.
The $230 ticket we recieved for not leaving balls on an 11 point moose we packed out for two days taught us that.
Should we dispute the ticket? The court will be held in Fort Nelson.

Yes indeed you should. I would. At the very least I would say your fine would be reduced and maybe the judge would send along his/her recommendation to the ministry. If they are arguing using the English language they have lost by definition already.

[mcrae]

The Regs are a little contradictory in a few area's, however they are NOT THE LAW! They a a synopsis written in layman's terms for the general hunting public to use as guidelines.
The $230 ticket we received for not leaving balls on an 11 point moose we packed out for two days taught us that.
Should we dispute the ticket? The court will be held in Fort Nelson.

You could dispute it but IMO you will not win because they are clearly enforcing the rule as I have pointed out a few times in this thread. Your not the only guy that I know that has been nailed for this. Could they make it more clear in the synopsis you bet! But as you pointed out the synopsis is just a guideline for the public.

The rule is if you remove head you must leave evidence of sex attached regardless of what others on HBC are saying this is what has been communicated to many of us by the fella that sets the rules.

Anyways boys its been a blast I am going to bed to dream of big mulies and how I will leave the nuts attached LOL....

[JCVD]

You could dispute it but IMO you will not win because they are clearly enforcing the rule as I have pointed out a few times in this thread. Your not the only guy that I know that has been nailed for this. Could they make it more clear in the synopsis you bet! But as you pointed out the synopsis is just a guideline for the public.

The rule is if you remove head you must leave evidence of sex attached regardless of what others on HBC are saying this is what has been communicated to many of us by the fella that sets the rules.

Anyways boys its been a blast I am going to bed to dream of big mulies and how I will leave the nuts attached LOL....

You actually have not referenced anything but hearsay and opinion. The law does in no way state what you have said. Please quote the law that states exactly what you have said. You cannot. You can however say what some guy says is the law. The fact that it is not clear is why he WILL win. How many cases have you fought in court may I ask? I fought and won a case where a sign that stated "no parking anytime" was dirty and unclear. The fact that it could not be understood easily was why I won.

[Ambush]

Let's make it very simple.

It is VERY easy to leave part of the penis on a [one] boned out quarter. For simplicity, leave the tail attached to that same quarter. This can be done with just a knife. That covers the sex, and hide for identification.
Keep the antlers with the meat IF there is a point restriction. Anybody that can't pack a sixty pound chunk of moose hind, should stay within winch distance of the road. Most serious hunters can pack out a whole boned out buck in one trip. Is three inches of flaccid [deer] penis going to be the deal breaker?

What's so hard to understand? The CO wants to be able to identify the species and sex of the animal. He doesn't want to have to give a lie detector test when you show up with a skinned, sexless, headless carcass and you have the antlers in your hand. Or six bags of unidentifiable meat and a rack strapped on your quad.

Some of you guys look so hard for trouble, it's little wonder that you find so much.

[Twobucks]

Thanks for the reply, but this raises another question for me. What is stop a poacher from harvesting 2 animals, keeping the skull plate from one and filling game bags with deboned meat and saying it was a really "healthy" animal? To me, atleast with the animal only quartered you can pretty much tell it was only one animal. I went out this this past week and saw a HUGE muley doe. Easily bigger then even any buck I have seen to date. If that was deboned I wouldn't be able to tell if it was to one animal or two small spikers.

This is how they can tell - the officer will ask you a series of pointed and leading questions, and you will give answers he knows are incomplete or untrue. Then he has cause to really take his time and count out your meat. Four loins? Busted. Four hams? Busted. It doesn't take anything to identify a few simple cuts of meat and if you have more than the amount found on one deer, you're screwed.

I read the regs and follow them - and if I'm not sure, I take care to make it easy for a CO to look at what I've done and see I'm telling the truth. That way, even if I have goofed up, they can at least see I'm not trying to get away with anything. Worst case, they can see I've tried to follow the spirit of the law, even if I missed the letter.

[JCVD]

Let's make it very simple.

It is VERY easy to leave part of the penis on a [one] boned out quarter. For simplicity, leave the tail attached to that same quarter. This can be done with just a knife. That covers the sex, and hide for identification.
Keep the antlers with the meat IF there is a point restriction. Anybody that can't pack a sixty pound chunk of moose hind, should stay within winch distance of the road. Most serious hunters can pack out a whole boned out buck in one trip. Is three inches of flaccid [deer] penis going to be the deal breaker?

What's so hard to understand? The CO wants to be able to identify the species and sex of the animal. He doesn't want to have to give a lie detector test when you show up with a skinned, sexless, headless carcass and you have the antlers in your hand. Or six bags of unidentifiable meat and a rack strapped on your quad.

Some of you guys look so hard for trouble, it's little wonder that you find so much.

I don't think you understand. Yes it is easy, but the discussion has been about the actual law. Of course you CAN do that and most people who do not want any trouble do, especially if you are transporting more than one animal. I think anyone reading this thread would opt for it on the next animal they pack out...BUT it isn't clear enough. Is it even reasonable to debone and leave the hide/ball/unit attached or do you need a full quarter? Half the animal? Should it be cut length ways not horizontal? What happens if the CO you encounter says that it does not count to leave a small patch of fur with said items on it? That you need a hoof and bone to deem it unmolested? If one grey area is left up to the officer to decide, then they all are. Then what are we left with?Packing entire animals out to make individuals satisfied?

[Legi0n]

Some of you guys look so hard for trouble, it's little wonder that you find so much.

That's not true.
The wording in the regs is clear enough but (from what I've read) the enforcement of the law is based on different rules.

Given there's no legal definition of a carcass, and given the dictionary definition means "dead animal body", then having the skullcap attached to a part of the neck complies to having it "naturally attached to the carcass or one part of the carcass". How big the neck part... it does not say. This means legally one vertebra is enough.

or one could just have naturally attached to one part of the carcass "both a testicle or part of the penis, AND the animal’s tail or another readily identifiable part of the hide not less than 6 cm2."

Like I've said, the regs are clear.
If the law speaks differently one could invoke "officially induced error" in court and win.

[todbartell]

penis penis penis penis penis

[tom]

I received the following email from Stephen Maclver (Senior Wildlife Regulations Officer from Victoria) on Sept. 28. His position is to present the Ministrie's view on interpretating the bylaw as advised by their lawyers.

Quote:-
It is legal to transport deboned/wrapped/butchered game from the kill location to one's home.
If you are de-boning/butchering the animal,you must leave, naturally attached to a part of the carcass, proof of sex(testicle, udder, etc. as described) and a minimum 6 cm2 patch of hide or the tail.
A detached head accompanying de-boned meat is not sufficient for proof of sex and species. The head needs to be left naturally attached to the carcass.

Tom

[KodiakHntr]

I think this is more than enough. When guys shoot sheep 15km back, do they leave the nuts attached for the hike out? I believe sheep and deer have the same transportation requirements.

Sheep aren't the same actually.


(3) For mountain sheep:
(a) If the animal is male, either
(i) that portion of the head that bears
the horns, OR
(ii) a testicle or part of the penis.
(b) If the animal is female, either
(i) that portion of the head that in
males normally bears horns, OR
(ii) a portion of the udder or teats.


Horn requirements notwithstanding, of course......

[Gateholio]

Last year we shot 2 deer, boned them out and packed them off the mountain.

As we arrived at our trucks 2 CO's pulled up to check Liscences and BS about hunting.

One of them asked if we had left the balls/penis attached to a quarter and I said "No, I thought that you only needed to have the antlers attached to the head as proof of sex?"

He said that if you separate the head form the carcass (which we had done) you need to leave evidence of sex on one piece of meat, and gave us warnings.

A testicle isn't going to add much weight to your pack, and as far as "how big " does the chunk of meat have to be, well, I'd just leave it attached to the boned out hindquarter. It's not a difficult thing to do.

[ARC]

Sheep aren't the same actually.


(3) For mountain sheep:
(a) If the animal is male, either
(i) that portion of the head that bears
the horns, OR
(ii) a testicle or part of the penis.
(b) If the animal is female, either
(i) that portion of the head that in
males normally bears horns, OR
(ii) a portion of the udder or teats.


Horn requirements notwithstanding, of course......


Here is the requirement for deer, elk and moose:


(1) For elk, moose, and deer:
(a) If the animal is male, either
(i) that portion of the head which
bears the antlers, OR
(ii) both a testicle or part of the penis,
AND the animal’s tail or another
readily identifiable part of the hide
not less than 6 cm2.

They look pretty similar to me. If a CO is going to give a ticket to a guy with just a deer head and antlers, but no nuts attached, he is going to give a guy a ticket for a caped out sheep head and no nuts attached. Bottom line is, according various COs and Victoria, you are required to pack out sheep nuts attached to the carcus (if you plan on removing the head).

Never been up north sheep hunting, do guys generally do this?

[KodiakHntr]

Most of the guys I know don't.....

No hide requirement for sheep.

And the local CO's that I've talked to in FSJ and FN have stated that they would be surprised if a sheep hunter packed out anything they didn't actually have to carry....

That said, a PG butcher I'm aware of reported a close buddy of mine a couple of years back for bringing in his LEH Bull Moose and not leaving evidence of sex attached to EACH quarter. The CO issued him a warning for not leaving evidence attached, even though one quarter had the nuts, and he had the skull plate with the quarters.

Was told that he couldn't prove that the other three quarters weren't from a cow.

[GoatGuy]

If I am quartering a point restricted animal.

Does a hair patch need to be attached to each quarter or just 1 of them?

Do you need to keep proof of sex attached to a quarter or will the antlers on the skull plate work?

keep hair on each quarter and a nut attached.

[GoatGuy]

That said, a PG butcher I'm aware of reported a close buddy of mine a couple of years back for bringing in his LEH Bull Moose and not leaving evidence of sex attached to EACH quarter. The CO issued him a warning for not leaving evidence attached, even though one quarter had the nuts, and he had the skull plate with the quarters.

Was told that he couldn't prove that the other three quarters weren't from a cow.

In theory, a bull should have 1 penis, 2 balls and 4 quarters. Right away we've got a pretty significant problem.

On top of that all that genitalia is at the back end of the critter nowhere near the front quarters.

I think your buddy was BSing you on what really happened and if he isn't he should have challenged the warning or called Victoria - I can guarantee to you the sh*t would have hit the fan.



If all else fails, apply common sense.

[ARC]

Most of the guys I know don't.....

No hide requirement for sheep.

And the local CO's that I've talked to in FSJ and FN have stated that they would be surprised if a sheep hunter packed out anything they didn't actually have to carry....



That's fine and I dont thik guys should have to pack anything extra out.

However another member on this thread stated they got dinged for not leaving evidence of sex on a moose up in Fort Nelson. If the requirements are generally the same, I can't see how a CO could enforce the rule on a moose, but choose not to enforce it on a sheep.

[KodiakHntr]

In theory, a bull should have 1 penis, 2 balls and 4 quarters. Right away we've got a pretty significant problem.

On top of that all that genitalia is at the back end of the critter nowhere near the front quarters.

I think your buddy was BSing you on what really happened and if he isn't he should have challenged the warning or called Victoria - I can guarantee to you the sh*t would have hit the fan.



If all else fails, apply common sense.

Well, considering I was there at the time, I'm pretty sure he wasn't BS'ing me.....

When the bull was turned away at the butchers, he (the butcher) stated, "you know, a lot of guys bring these things in whole...."

His take on it was that the pecker should of been on the back half, and head attached to the front half.

Funniest part was the CO offering to write a note for him so he could take it back to the same butcher.......You can imagine the reply to that.

[GoatGuy]

Well, considering I was there at the time, I'm pretty sure he wasn't BS'ing me.....

When the bull was turned away at the butchers, he (the butcher) stated, "you know, a lot of guys bring these things in whole...."

His take on it was that the pecker should of been on the back half, and head attached to the front half.

Funniest part was the CO offering to write a note for him so he could take it back to the same butcher.......You can imagine the reply to that.

Your buddy should get ahold of the folks in Victoria and have a chat. Don't need this happening any more. Guaranteed the CO would get a talking to.

The butcher sounds like a bit of a cull.

[KodiakHntr]

That butcher was definately a cull. Hence no more business from any of us that have had critters taken around there, or from any family members in the area either....It all goes to Honeyfords now.

As to giving the Victoria folks a call, can't see that happening. The last person in the world that you need to have pissed at you is a CO. Bad experiences in the past with CO's with bad attitudes have created a culture of mistrust for a lot of folks.

[Fisher-Dude]

The Regs are a little contradictory in a few area's, however they are NOT THE LAW! They a a synopsis written in laymans terms for the general hunting public to use as guidelines.
The $230 ticket we recieved for not leaving balls on an 11 point moose we packed out for two days taught us that.
Should we dispute the ticket? The court will be held in Fort Nelson.


Yes indeed you should. I would. At the very least I would say your fine would be reduced and maybe the judge would send along his/her recommendation to the ministry. If they are arguing using the English language they have lost by definition already.

You can dispute it only if you want your name published on the internet for all us to mock you when you lose in court. If you simply pay the ticket, as you should since you broke the law, you will only be listed as "individual" on the Quarterly Compliance Report, and we won't be able to mock you.

Don't waste the CO's time (and your time), because every single one of these "fail to leave evidence of species and sex" cases that goes to court will be deemed guilty by the judge. If they weren't, the law as it is written would have been repealed ages ago. The proof that it stands up is the number of guilty individuals on the Compliance Reports for doing exactly what you did.

By the way, VD guy has been watching too much court TV.

[BiG Boar]

I think what people are forgetting or miss reading is the word ATTACHED! If the horns are not attached to the carcass and you got no sex organs attached you are not following the law.

[GoatGuy]

That butcher was definately a cull. Hence no more business from any of us that have had critters taken around there, or from any family members in the area either....It all goes to Honeyfords now.

As to giving the Victoria folks a call, can't see that happening. The last person in the world that you need to have pissed at you is a CO. Bad experiences in the past with CO's with bad attitudes have created a culture of mistrust for a lot of folks.

If the CO is giving you a warning when you're following the law I really can't imagine things getting much worse. :wink:

[pearljam]

What does a guy do when he looses the quarter with the balls on it to a grizzly??? Now he is traveling with 3 unmarked quarters and a set of antlers??????

[GoatGuy]

What does a guy do when he looses the quarter with the balls on it to a grizzly??? Now he is traveling with 3 unmarked quarters and a set of antlers??????

If you call the CO you'll probably get a warning.

Love the what ifs.

[pearljam]

If you call the CO you'll probably get a warning.

Love the what ifs.

Not a what if....... We bagged two moose and lost the quarter to my bull that had the balls and the patch of hair to a grizzly. The entire drive home we were a little worried

[GoatGuy]

Not a what if....... We bagged two moose and lost the quarter to my bull that had the balls and the patch of hair to a grizzly. The entire drive home we were a little worried

You should have been, you could have had it confiscated, been fined or at the least given a warning from what I understand.


If nothing else, always protect your balls!

[bighornbob]

If you simply pay the ticket, as you should since you broke the law

Its not that simple. You may have broken the law or you may have broken what the CO thought what the was? Is that fair.

I know the intent of the law and if you got a warning that would be fine but if you get a fine for reading the law one way and the CO interpreting it another way, there's a big problem.

So far I have not seen anyone mention how big the carcass has to be? As in the antlers have to be attached to the carcass or part of the carcass. Say you cut an animal in half to load one half on the front racks of your ATV and the back half on the back racks. Head and antlers stay attached to the front half.Is half the animal part of the carcass and is it enough? Or do you need nuts on the back half too?? Is a quater of the animal enough to be classified as part of the carcass? What about 40 pounds of neck meat? Is that part of carcass?

What about the hide requirement. How are you suppose to leave a piece of the hide attached to a piece of the carcass if you skin it for a lifesize mount? I am sure your taxidermist would love you if you brought in a lifesize cape and four 1 inch patches of hide that you left attached to the 4 quaters.

Speaking of quaters on the animal. Show me where it says what a quater is? You said when its not in the regs, the judge looks at common sence. Well common sense tells me 2 quaters is a half and 2 halves make a whole. So in theory you have to bring out all the edible meat from the whole animal including meat inbetween the ribs. I would like to know who does that on an elk or moose that they have to pack out.

Speaking of edible meat, the law says you must bring out all edible portions of the 4 quaters (see above). So if you left a 1 inch cube of good meat on a blood shot shoulder where the other 99% is garbage, you are breaking the law and could get a fine. Because as the law is wriiten you have to bring out all the edible meat. So if a CO fines you for breaking the law, you will just pay the ticket becuase you broke the law???

BHB

[KodiakHntr]

If the CO is giving you a warning when you're following the law I really can't imagine things getting much worse. :wink:

Oh? It can.

As with any wingnut that can get a job doing anything, not everyone will be cut out for that particular job.

[dana]

If you need both then why the hell did they change the regs a few years back to add the word OR? If the head is not good enough then why the F### do they even mention antlers attached to carcus or portion of carcus? These Victoria guys have basically reverted back to the OLD interpretation and are screwed in a court of LAW because the wording NOW doesn't support their actions.

And for those who received the said Emails, did the Victoria dude answer how much meat needs to be attached to the balls? Again, it is only basic reasoning if the head with neck meat is not efficient for the dude, then anything less than the entire quarter with nuts attached wouldn't appease the guy either.

Then theres the bloody lack of communication on the entire subject. Some emails to a select few hunters is suposed to get every one on the same page. I'm really disappointed in guys like FD who are leaders in the BCWF and they haven't gotten off their asses and demanded the ministry clarify at the very least on their Website. The common joe read the regs and follows them and then is ticketed for doing so. This is exactly one of the reasons stated in the Hunter Recruitment and Retention Strategy as why hunter numbers are falling. Law abiding citizens being made to feel like Poachers and Law breakers because of stupid regulations. Goat Guy wrote it. He did the research right?

FD used the illustration of Jaywalking. Well, guys are getting tickets because they had one foot over the line and that ain't reasonable. The ministry needs to step up and stop persecuting LAW ABIDING HUNTERS.

Isn't there actual REAL POACHERS that CO's should be spending their time and effort in trying to catch?

[Gateholio]

If you need both then why the hell did they change the regs a few years back to add the word OR? If the head is not good enough then why the F### do they even mention antlers attached to carcus or portion of carcus? These Victoria guys have basically reverted back to the OLD interpretation and are screwed in a court of LAW because the wording NOW doesn't support their actions.



That was the question I asked: Didn't the regulations change for sex identification recently?

I was told that if the animal is whole, then you only need one or the other, but cut it up and you need both, as it's the easiest method to ensure all the parts are from the same animal.

The CO's were polite and professional, we had a good BS before and after the warning, and I understood their point.

[dana]

"if the animal is whole, then you only need one or the other, but cut it up and you need both, as it's the easiest method to ensure all the parts are from the same animal."

Gate
What you just wrote would be easy to state in the regs would it not? Why can't the Ministry get their Shit together and make the regs that simple? Instead they would rather hand out tickets to law abiding hunters to keep the decline in our numbers going. They started the BS in the early 80's and I guess they just want to make sure they do a good job at killing us off eh?

[ratherbefishin]

Do you have to have one nut on each hind quarter-or the penis on one and the balls on the other?

[Gateholio]

"if the animal is whole, then you only need one or the other, but cut it up and you need both, as it's the easiest method to ensure all the parts are from the same animal."

Gate
What you just wrote would be easy to state in the regs would it not? Why can't the Ministry get their Shit together and make the regs that simple? Instead they would rather hand out tickets to law abiding hunters to keep the decline in our numbers going. They started the BS in the early 80's and I guess they just want to make sure they do a good job at killing us off eh?

You seem passionate about this topic, and every "cause" needs a passionate champion. You could start your campaign by writing a letter to the MOE, and CC your MLA, Mr. McIvor and the BCWF. Good chance if you put some time into it you can get the Wildlife Act and Synopsis clarified to reflect what the CO's want to see. I doubt they will want to drop the testicles attached part, but you should be able to get the regulations clearly spelled out.

[dana]

I'm passionate about the fact that law-abiding honest to goodness hunters are made to feel like criminals because they are doing their best to follow the regs as set out in front of them every year in the synopsis. The amount of rules are staggering, and hunters that are making every effort to follow them are still getting tickets from CO's for things that are 'non-issues' in the scope of wildlife protection. And things are different from one CO to the other. You may go through a check in one area of the province and the CO looking at your rack and backpack of meat and congratulates you for getting an animal 'the hard way'. The next time you bump into a CO you are getting a ticket. There is the letter of the law and then there is the CO's personal interpretation. The letter of the law clearly states one OR the other. But according to numerous accounts, that ain't good enough for some CO's. This argument goes to many other areas. My recent 4 point muley thread is a prime example. We have proved beyond a doubt in the Wildlife ACT that a tine is a tine and a eyeguard is a eyeguard, and yet we hear guys like FD say we will get a ticket from his CO friends because they somehow don't agree with the Wildlife Act. That is BS. And FD knows it. If the BCWF is for the resident hunter, a leader in the BCWF like FD should be making the phone calls to get the haressment of law-abiding hunters stopped. But nope. He'd rather just kiss ass with them. Doesn't make the BCWF look like it is in support of resident hunters now does it?

[tom]

When I had a telephone conversation with Stephen MaClver following his email, he told me that was the official position from various Ministry lawyers. The COs out there are as diverse opinion as us hunters. Therefore in order to avoid hassle when running into a nitpicky CO, both skull plate with antlers and sex organs attached to PART of the carcass is advisable.
The definition of part of carcass is unclear, even to him, although officially he likes to stick with a quarter. Unofficially he agrees part of the neck or the pelvic girdle satisfy as part of the carcass.
Personnally he likes to see somebody challenges the ruling in court so they can have a definitive regulation to go on. Right now the wording 'OR' in the regulation is not applicable when playing safe.

Tom

[Gateholio]

I'm passionate about the fact that law-abiding honest to goodness hunters are made to feel like criminals because they are doing their best to follow the regs as set out in front of them every year in the synopsis. The amount of rules are staggering, and hunters that are making every effort to follow them are still getting tickets from CO's for things that are 'non-issues' in the scope of wildlife protection. And things are different from one CO to the other. You may go through a check in one area of the province and the CO looking at your rack and backpack of meat and congratulates you for getting an animal 'the hard way'. The next time you bump into a CO you are getting a ticket. There is the letter of the law and then there is the CO's personal interpretation. The letter of the law clearly states one OR the other. But according to numerous accounts, that ain't good enough for some CO's. This argument goes to many other areas. My recent 4 point muley thread is a prime example. We have proved beyond a doubt in the Wildlife ACT that a tine is a tine and a eyeguard is a eyeguard, and yet we hear guys like FD say we will get a ticket from his CO friends because they somehow don't agree with the Wildlife Act. That is BS. And FD knows it. If the BCWF is for the resident hunter, a leader in the BCWF like FD should be making the phone calls to get the haressment of law-abiding hunters stopped. But nope. He'd rather just kiss ass with them. Doesn't make the BCWF look like it is in support of resident hunters now does it?

If you want some clear definitions in the regulations, I am sure you can make it happen. Keep in mind you may not like the results regarding the 4 point definition, as they will probably "define it" so that only 4 up top will be a legal shooter.

As with anything else, if you just want to wait and hope that some volunteer at the BCWF picks up on your "cause" that you have posted on a website, then I wouldn't hold your breath. I am not sure that the BCWF even have a stance or opinion on this issue, or think it is an issue....Only way to find out is contacting them regarding it. If you want change, you gotta make it happen, not wait for some other volunteer to step up and do it.

[dana]

When that volunteer is the one on here that is the voice against the common hunter, I have no hope that they care. I recall someone having a sig line that read, "Is Fisher Dude the real voice of the BCWF?" I think that sig line holds some serious merrit. If the guy promotes himself as a BCWF champion and then slam the common hunter as much as he does, it is no wonder the BCWF struggles to maintain its membership.

As for my wants on the definitions, my only want is to have clarity where the common hunter won't be constantly feeling like a criminal. I could care less if they put a rule that states 'eyeguard(s)' versus the curent eyeguard, or nuts and antlers versus the curent nuts OR antlers. Just don't harass lawabiding hunters because you can't get your shit together and make the regs say what you want them to say. I still can't believe they changed the regs a few years ago to add the word OR and then this year send out a few select emails saying that if you follow the regs, you will be charged. That in itself is utter and total Bullshit! At the very least have the balls enough to admit the regs are not correct to what you want to acheive and annouce a CHANGE of wording on the website. But nope, some little emails to a select few to stir the murky waters and create confusion is the way they do it.

[Fisher-Dude]

If you want some clear definitions in the regulations, I am sure you can make it happen. Keep in mind you may not like the results regarding the 4 point definition, as they will probably "define it" so that only 4 up top will be a legal shooter.

As with anything else, if you just want to wait and hope that some volunteer at the BCWF picks up on your "cause" that you have posted on a website, then I wouldn't hold your breath. I am not sure that the BCWF even have a stance or opinion on this issue, or think it is an issue....Only way to find out is contacting them regarding it. If you want change, you gotta make it happen, not wait for some other volunteer to step up and do it.

Hell no Clark, he'd rather spend more energy yapping about me on the internet instead of emailing MacIver and asking how he can help the guy clarify certain regs that he has trouble understanding.

As with most stuff, it always falls in the lap of a handful of volunteers from local clubs and the Fed to carry the torch for the snivellers who refuse to pitch in and help, but always have something to bitch about. I won't be pursuing dana's cause for him, on this principle alone.

I have more projects than time right now for both my club and region 8, primarily on access issues and 2011/2012 season proposals.

Maybe he can sweet talk someone else into doing it for him, as he's obviously incapable of volunteering his own precious time.

[dana]

FD,
I'll champion the cause by following the regs. You think I can't win in court. Watch me! :)

[Gateholio]

When that volunteer is the one on here that is the voice against the common hunter, I have no hope that they care. I recall someone having a sig line that read, "Is Fisher Dude the real voice of the BCWF?" I think that sig line holds some serious merrit. If the guy promotes himself as a BCWF champion and then slam the common hunter as much as he does, it is no wonder the BCWF struggles to maintain its membership.

As for my wants on the definitions, my only want is to have clarity where the common hunter won't be constantly feeling like a criminal. I could care less if they put a rule that states 'eyeguard(s)' versus the curent eyeguard, or nuts and antlers versus the curent nuts OR antlers. Just don't harass lawabiding hunters because you can't get your shit together and make the regs say what you want them to say. I still can't believe they changed the regs a few years ago to add the word OR and then this year send out a few select emails saying that if you follow the regs, you will be charged. That in itself is utter and total Bullshit! At the very least have the balls enough to admit the regs are not correct to what you want to acheive and annouce a CHANGE of wording on the website. But nope, some little emails to a select few to stir the murky waters and create confusion is the way they do it.

So because "FIsher Dude" from the intraweb, who may or may not be involved in the BCWF (other than just being a member) disagrees with your assessment of the 4 pt regulations (on the intraweb) you have determined that the ENTIRE BCWF does not care about more clearly defining regulations in order to help hunters? That is quite a leap of faith!:-D

But lets say you are correct. The BCWF doesn't think this is an issue. But you DO think it's an important issue. better start writing the MOE etc as I suggested. Write newspapers that cater to communities with hunters at the same time. Get your local club to propose a resolution for the BCWF AGM. Make some noise about this topic that you feel is important.

Post your letters here and encourage others to also write to further your cause.

[noahs ark]

FD Dont put yourself on a pedastal because some of us have other more important obligations. We cant all be chiefs like you buddy. Theres gotta be indians too. 11 pages of diahrea.

[Gateholio]

FD Dont put yourself on a pedastal because some of us have other more important obligations. We cant all be chiefs like you buddy. Theres gotta be indians too. 11 pages of diahrea.

Important obligations or not, if you've got time to post on HBC, you have time to write a letter....

[Fisher-Dude]

FD Dont put yourself on a pedastal because some of us have other more important obligations. We cant all be chiefs like you buddy. Theres gotta be indians too. 11 pages of diahrea.

Perhaps if you didn't get stoned every day, you'd have more motivation and make choices with your time that benefit society as a whole. :wink:


http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showpost.php?p=714656&postcount=17

[LeverActionJunkie]

I agree with you 100% Dana. If I gotta go all "Perry Mason" on the F#@$in regs every year, sorry every second year now, f@#$ that. Leave it to some bureaucratic douce in Victoria to not be able to print a booklet that a guy can read and say "Ok if I do A, B, C, then I won't be a thieving scum suckin poacher."

All well by the time I have kids and they get to be Cody's age either they won't be allowed to hunt or there will be so much legal B.S. and taxes on licenses that it won't be worth drivin around burning $3/L fuel to shoot a critter and wonder if I have all the proper parts attached and know the secret handshake for the nice Gestapo sergeant.



PS I in no way mean to offend anyone on here. Unless you are a MLA or Gov't official.

[Fisher-Dude]

The Gestapo guy is a major Major, not a Sargeant. :wink: :mrgreen:

[LeverActionJunkie]

:wink:10-4 Major:wink:

[noahs ark]

Rookie hunter and learning. Def. motivated just not as educated as you

[dana]

So because "FIsher Dude" from the intraweb, who may or may not be involved in the BCWF (other than just being a member) disagrees with your assessment of the 4 pt regulations (on the intraweb) you have determined that the ENTIRE BCWF does not care about more clearly defining regulations in order to help hunters? That is quite a leap of faith!:-D

But lets say you are correct. The BCWF doesn't think this is an issue. But you DO think it's an important issue. better start writing the MOE etc as I suggested. Write newspapers that cater to communities with hunters at the same time. Get your local club to propose a resolution for the BCWF AGM. Make some noise about this topic that you feel is important.

Post your letters here and encourage others to also write to further your cause.

Nope, been able to assess Fisherdude's lack of personal skills and patting himself on the back as God's gift to the BCWF for years now. He has been constantly attacking the resident hunter online for years. Heck one time he told me that my taking my kids out hunting does nothing for hunter recruitment. His work with a hunting simulator was far superior than the basic, take your childern hunting attidude that I have. That is the kind of guy he is. A saint that can do no wrong, and every other hunter is scum, unless of course if they ride a quad in meadows to fetch their moose. ;) He has proven time and time again that he is indeed NOT the voice of the BCWF.

[Gateholio]

Nope, been able to assess Fisherdude's lack of personal skills and patting himself on the back as God's gift to the BCWF for years now. He has been constantly attacking the resident hunter online for years. Heck one time he told me that my taking my kids out hunting does nothing for hunter recruitment. His work with a hunting simulator was far superior than the basic, take your childern hunting attidude that I have. That is the kind of guy he is. A saint that can do no wrong, and every other hunter is scum, unless of course if they ride a quad in meadows to fetch their moose. ;) He has proven time and time again that he is indeed NOT the voice of the BCWF.

Sorry, I am bit confused? Does this mean we should be expecting to see you put some effort into fixing the problems you have identified?:confused:

[dana]

Gate,
Why is that always the card that people on this site jump too? They assume that because you identify some problems with the Ministry on HBC all you are is some internet whiner. Do you know me personally? Do you know who I talk to and who I send emails too? :)
Plenty of Ministry guys read this site and feel the heat when the topic is turned on them. Alot of them have a love/hate attitude towards me. I have pissed in many a bowl of ministry cornflakes. You can say what you want about the medium of HBC, it is an effective tool to get under the skin of people at the Ministry. ;)

[kendoo]

Just leave proof of sex on a quarter, few years ago in pg my friend shot a cow moose in cow season (leh) had complete moose with head attached BUT cut all proof of sex off when gutting, got stopped by co & cost $125 fine. He started to argue & co said fine I'll need to confiscate the moose for evidence in court. Friend said I'll pay the fine & keep my moose.

[Gateholio]

Gate,
Why is that always the card that people on this site jump too? They assume that because you identify some problems with the Ministry on HBC all you are is some internet whiner. Do you know me personally? Do you know who I talk to and who I send emails too? :)
Plenty of Ministry guys read this site and feel the heat when the topic is turned on them. Alot of them have a love/hate attitude towards me. I have pissed in many a bowl of ministry cornflakes. You can say what you want about the medium of HBC, it is an effective tool to get under the skin of people at the Ministry. ;)

SO is that a yes?:confused:

I think HBC is an effective medium to get input from other hunters on an issue (clearly there is lots of confusion about evidence of sex and that has been identified) and I think it's an effective medium for recruiting others that wish to jump on your bandwagon, and I know for a fact that lots of the MOE people read it because I can see their log in information and all that....but someone actually has to get the "official" ball rolling and get the message to the right place. Otherwise it is indeed just "internet whining"

What is your goal? Is it to fix a problem or is it to "get under the skin" and "piss in the cornflakes" of the MOE? It's a simple definition problem, that can probably be fixed with a pen stroke and I am sure everyone wants clear definitions, not just hunters but lawmakers too.. Why the grandstanding and confrontation? Why not just start a civil campaign to get the regs clarified?

[hunter1947]

If a male keep the sex in the zip lock bag for transporting it home.
If it is a male I transport the antlers with the meat as well.

If it is a doe keep the head with the meat if you can when transporting as for a piece of the rear meat with a patch of hide that is 3x3 inches square..

[dana]

SO is that a yes?:confused:

I think HBC is an effective medium to get input from other hunters on an issue (clearly there is lots of confusion about evidence of sex and that has been identified) and I think it's an effective medium for recruiting others that wish to jump on your bandwagon, and I know for a fact that lots of the MOE people read it because I can see their log in information and all that....but someone actually has to get the "official" ball rolling and get the message to the right place. Otherwise it is indeed just "internet whining"

What is your goal? Is it to fix a problem or is it to "get under the skin" and "piss in the cornflakes" of the MOE? It's a simple definition problem, that can probably be fixed with a pen stroke and I am sure everyone wants clear definitions, not just hunters but lawmakers too.. Why the grandstanding and confrontation? Why not just start a civil campaign to get the regs clarified?

IMHO,
The regs are clear. It's the Ministry that isn't following their own rules. They added the OR a few years ago to end confusion. No need for another definition, just a need for the Ministry to stop persecuting hunters that ARE following the rules. What threads like this do is get people thinking about the subject. And that in itself is a good thing. You get a bunch of guys like me who aren't pissing in our pants when we see a CO, guys who have confidence in the LAW, you'll see the Ministry either back down on their current position or you will see them change the definition in 2012 when the next regs come out. Currently, hunters need to have some balls and stand up for their rights. If you are following the law, then you have nothing to worry about. The more guys that do this the more the Ministry will see the error of their ways. So, yes, pissing in cornflakes is my intent. The Ministry want a bunch of sheep that sit and cower in the corner and don't speak up. It is obvious that there are many on here that just don't want to rock the boat. I, on the other hand, love rocking the boat. It's a way more fun boat ride. ;)

[J_T]

I'm passionate about the fact that law-abiding honest to goodness hunters are made to feel like criminals because they are doing their best to follow the regs as set out in front of them every year in the synopsis. The amount of rules are staggering, and hunters that are making every effort to follow them are still getting tickets from CO's for things that are 'non-issues' in the scope of wildlife protection. And things are different from one CO to the other. You may go through a check in one area of the province and the CO looking at your rack and backpack of meat and congratulates you for getting an animal 'the hard way'. The next time you bump into a CO you are getting a ticket. There is the letter of the law and then there is the CO's personal interpretation. The letter of the law clearly states one OR the other. But according to numerous accounts, that ain't good enough for some CO's......

I tend to agree with this. On the topic of sex, during the "any elk" bow only season the CO gave us a hard time for not leaving the required identifiable markings 'attached'. The bulls head was on the ground and four quarters hanging. (no balls and no hide) Any elk. What kind of enforcement is that?

[averagejoe]

got pulled over late late last night with mule deer deboned in 2 back packs. didnt ask for evidence of sex . good thing to

[scoot]

got pulled over late late last night with mule deer deboned in 2 back packs. didnt ask for evidence of sex . good thing to

Still does not mean it's the right thing to do (puting it in the drybox). Congrats on the deer.

[Gateholio]

IMHO,
The regs are clear. It's the Ministry that isn't following their own rules. They added the OR a few years ago to end confusion. No need for another definition, just a need for the Ministry to stop persecuting hunters that ARE following the rules. What threads like this do is get people thinking about the subject. And that in itself is a good thing. You get a bunch of guys like me who aren't pissing in our pants when we see a CO, guys who have confidence in the LAW, you'll see the Ministry either back down on their current position or you will see them change the definition in 2012 when the next regs come out. Currently, hunters need to have some balls and stand up for their rights. If you are following the law, then you have nothing to worry about. The more guys that do this the more the Ministry will see the error of their ways. So, yes, pissing in cornflakes is my intent. The Ministry want a bunch of sheep that sit and cower in the corner and don't speak up. It is obvious that there are many on here that just don't want to rock the boat. I, on the other hand, love rocking the boat. It's a way more fun boat ride. ;)

No need to wait until 2012, send a letter asking for clarification and they may just do that via the website, and it will surely get posted here on HBC, and reach all the audience that you have targeted on this thread.

You say you want to "rock the boat" then do it. ROCK THE BOAT. Posting here rocks no boats. A dedicated letter writing campaign coupled with some BCWF input will rock lots of boats.

If you want to "challenge" the law, then dont' wait for the unlikely event that a CO happens to pull up to you as you pack a deer out- Remove the testicles and penis and take the boned out quarters and antlers to a CO and tell them what you did, and see if they will write you a ticket. That's what real activists do-ROCK THE BOAT!

I've rocked lots of boats, but rarely does it happen just from posturing on HBC. Just recently, there was a recent move to ban bow hunting in Whistler Municipality, a few people including myself wrote letters to the local media, the municipal council and a few attended the meetings where it was discussed (I was away on a hunting trip so couldn't attend the meeting, but my letter was read) A council that was ready to ban bowhunting with a stroke of a pen was challenged by our letters and a few council members questioned why they should enact such a ban. While it is not a foregone conclusion...it's now hunting season and there is no ban imminent.

For me? The evidence of sex thing isn't a hill to die for. I don't mind packing an extra 4 ounces of balls out to avoid tickets and a trip to court (which I may well win, but there is no precedent set and therefore no sure thing). For you it may be different.

If you think this is a big issue then take the fight to them, through letters, a public campaign and/or putting yourself into the system to force the courts to make a ruling and force a precedent. I certainly wish you well and would be more than happy to contribute a letter from our club to your cause for more accurate definitions. Boats will be rocking....

I do know one thing, and I learned it from reading some graffiti on a wall when I was a youngster....

TALK MINUS ACTION EQUALS BULLSHIT

[dana]

Like I said Gate, you don't know me do ya? All you know is an internet persona by the name dana that is a cocky little SOB. You don't know the real Steve Dana. You don't know who I know, who I talk to and who I write emails too. There seems to be this mentality in the modern internet age that if you have exchanged some verbal dialogue on some chat site you therefore know that person and are suddenly friends.

[Gateholio]

L You don't know who I know, who I talk to and who I write emails too

Of course. The only thing that anyone has to go by on another member of HBC is on what a person posts, or if their name happens to show up in MOE reports, correspondence, studies and/or publications.

Your posts indicate that you believe that you are rocking the MOE boat via posting on HBC.

Personally, I don't think that's a very effective technique, but to each his own.

[JCVD]

Of course. The only thing that anyone has to go by on another member of HBC is on what a person posts, or if their name happens to show up in MOE reports, correspondence, studies and/or publications.

Your posts indicate that you believe that you are rocking the MOE boat via posting on HBC.

Personally, I don't think that's a very effective technique, but to each his own.

What is the address of the man who can actually get things done in the ministry? I'll write a letter in the next few days. Any other gripes with the regs btw that I should add in the letter for things that are unclear?

[JCVD]

No one knows eh?

[Gateholio]

Sorry, I didn't see your question earlier.

In an earlier post on this thread I mentioned some names.

You could start your campaign by writing a letter to the MOE, and CC your MLA, Stephen McIvor and the BCWF.

Maybe Goat Guy or FD also have some names you could add.

[hotstuff]

I'd tell them you want evidence of sex?

Go look at your wife, I was just there! :twisted:

[JCVD]

Sorry, I didn't see your question earlier.

In an earlier post on this thread I mentioned some names.

You could start your campaign by writing a letter to the MOE, and CC your MLA, Stephen McIvor and the BCWF.

Maybe Goat Guy or FD also have some names you could add.

PearlJam emailed me Steves email which I could not find on my own lol. Is there anybody specific in the other groups to address the letter to personally or is it just a to whom it may concern kinda deal?

[Gateholio]

Your MLA is dependent on your electoral area, direct MOE correspondence ot the minister, and the BCWF WIldlife committee.

Well written, rational arguments get results, ranting and raving usually turn people off and your letters will get shelved.:wink:

[GoatGuy]

If you want an answer, just send your question to Steve. Not much need to include the MLA unless you want to drive change and it's probably best to figure out the actual problem (if there is one) before trying to have things changed.

Wow, 13 pages.

[Gateholio]

Driving change is the point. it's already been posted what Steve McIvor feels is the correct interpretation of the law, and it's been posted what the CO's want. The issue is clarity of the definitions.

[JCVD]

Your MLA is dependent on your electoral area, direct MOE correspondence ot the minister, and the BCWF WIldlife committee.

Well written, rational arguments get results, ranting and raving usually turn people off and your letters will get shelved.:wink:

Whatchoo tryin' to say Willis lol? Have I been ranting and raving? I thought I have been pretty well behaved :-D

[Gateholio]

Whatchoo tryin' to say Willis lol? Have I been ranting and raving? I thought I have been pretty well behaved :-D

All I am saying is that some letter writers to government, newspapers etc can get carried away, asking rhetorical questions, being sarcastic, being condescending or insulting. Nobody likes getting ranted at or insulted, so well thought out arguments are always going to sound better than emotional rants.

If I was going to say that you are ranting and raving, I'd say so. I usually talk pretty directly.
:wink:

[JCVD]

All I am saying is that some letter writers to government, newspapers etc can get carried away, asking rhetorical questions, being sarcastic, being condescending or insulting. Nobody likes getting ranted at or insulted, so well thought out arguments are always going to sound better than emotional rants.

If I was going to say that you are ranting and raving, I'd say so. I usually talk pretty directly.
:wink:

Stop winking then lol. No worries about any of that anyhow, I can write a decent letter when needed. 8)

[GoatGuy]

Driving change is the point. it's already been posted what Steve McIvor feels is the correct interpretation of the law, and it's been posted what the CO's want. The issue is clarity of the definitions.

Personally, more of a quote guy and believe all we've seen so far is somebody's interpretation of an email. Dunno though, haven't sifted through all the junk.


Anyways, looked at the definition for deer it says the head attached to the carcass or one part of the carcass OR the testicles or penis attached and a pitch of indentifiable hide or the tail to the carcass or one part of the carcass.

This is out of the wildlife act:

Possession of carcass

36 (1) A person who possesses the carcass of any wildlife, whether or not the carcass has been divided, without leaving attached the parts required by regulation to be left attached, commits an offence.


I would say just having a cutoff head with antlers does not constitute part of the carcass - so if you're going to use the head as proof of sex I'd leave it attached to at least a quarter but that would be 'strange' so half or the whole deer. Other than that all it says is you need some hair/tail and a nut attached to ONE of the quarters (part of the carcass). What I'm trying to say is I don't know if the head constitutes part of the carcass.

Long story short, better safe than sorry - leaving hair and a ball is not a hard thing to do.

Hope this helps.

[Gateholio]

I agree with you, but some feel that the regulations could have better definitions, as they are worded in such a way that may confuse some hunters.

As I said before in this thread.....Me, I'll just leave the nuts on when I bone out an animal in the bush.:-D

[JCVD]

Personally, more of a quote guy and believe all we've seen so far is somebody's interpretation of an email. Dunno though, haven't sifted through all the junk.


Anyways, looked at the definition for deer it says the head attached to the carcass or one part of the carcass OR the testicles or penis attached and a pitch of indentifiable hide or the tail to the carcass or one part of the carcass.

This is out of the wildlife act:

Possession of carcass

36 (1) A person who possesses the carcass of any wildlife, whether or not the carcass has been divided, without leaving attached the parts required by regulation to be left attached, commits an offence.


I would say just having a cutoff head with antlers does not constitute part of the carcass - so if you're going to use the head as proof of sex I'd leave it attached to at least a quarter but that would be 'strange' so half or the whole deer. Other than that all it says is you need some hair/tail and a nut attached to ONE of the quarters (part of the carcass). What I'm trying to say is I don't know if the head constitutes part of the carcass.

Long story short, better safe than sorry - leaving hair and a ball is not a hard thing to do.

Hope this helps.

Kinda the point of sending letters though wouldn't ya say? So no one will have to guess anymore or be in a situation because they didn't read this thread lol?

[GoatGuy]

Kinda the point of sending letters though wouldn't ya say? So no one will have to guess anymore or be in a situation because they didn't read this thread lol?


I agree with you, but some feel that the regulations could have better definitions, as they are worded in such a way that may confuse some hunters.

As I said before in this thread.....Me, I'll just leave the nuts on when I bone out an animal in the bush.:-D


Sounds good, but after reading it, it doesn't seem all that complicated and I know realize that leaving a patch of fur on every quarter was not required. It's the way I've always done and that goes back to the 90s when the regs were different.

So now I will leave balls with hair on one quarter which is kinda nice.

[scott h]

I called the CO's main office and left a message. They called back today.
I explained that I would be staying for an extended period up in the Charlottes and the CO said that it would be no problem, just butcher and wrap the deer as I normally would (including grinding and freezing) and just keep a small piece of meat with the fur on (1x1 inch) in a zip lock with the meat. Keep the meat from each animal together so it is obvious the number of animals (I'll put each together in a plastic bag) and that's all they need. I will put either the udder or the testes of each animal attached to the meat/fur just to be sure.
He was very helpful and wished me a good hunt.
I do own a piece of property/house in masset but it is not my "primary residence".

[aggiehunter]

Hunter1947...if you leave the nuts in a

[aggiehunter]

oops...anyway H1947....if your hunting in the Ek and run into a newschool CO with your nuts in a zip lock it will cost you $245...

[aggiehunter]

Dana...I'm one of those sarcastic jabbing sob's too but what is really funny about HBC is when they think they know you....and they don't really...now where the hell is Aldo Raine when you need him hey!!!!!!