Stories in Hunting Magazines.

[bwhnter]

I was reading a story in a hunting magazine and noticed something that the author wrote about that was not a legal way to harvest an animal. It was not his animal that was taken this way and the story wasn't based on this animal. It was kind of mentioned as an after thought at the end of the story. This was a guided hunt and the Outfitter could get into trouble over this story. What I was wondering is do you think that the Editor of the magazine should have edited that part out of the story or should he have left it in ?

[huntwriter]

If what happend was not legal than the writer should have the moral obligation to write about it and expose that fact. I know I would have, provided that I personally knew and not just hearsay.

[Brambles]

Yeah I read a story in Big Game Adventures where a guy wrote about another hunter shooting a grizz off the carcass of an elk that he had shot the day before, that too was a guided hunt. I think the editor should have weeded out that part, especially since the guy was blabbing about someone elses hunt and not about his own, third hand info isn't always dependable and more often it isn't at all.

[Marc]

Sometimes the editors don't know what's legal or not. I read in the magazine that the BCWF puts out about this young kid who shot his first duck with a .22 and had the kids picture in the magazine. It's illegal to shoot waterfowl with a single projectile and here is the story right in the same magazine that publishes poachers and their fines. Editors are sometimes just that, editors. They’ve got no concept of the laws and only go on the guided hunts. Because the outfitter did it he assumed it was legal.

[RiverOtter]

Yeah I read a story in Big Game Adventures where a guy wrote about another hunter shooting a grizz off the carcass of an elk that he had shot the day before, that too was a guided hunt.

Brambles, I read that story as well. The guy had a combo hunt booked elk/grizzly and after he shot his elk, he went back the next day and shot a grizzly that was feeding on the gut pile. Last time I checked, there was no law against shooting a bear off a gut pile(B.C). A gut pile is a natural by product of a successfull hunt, not a stategically placed bait station.

RO

[Brambles]

Brambles, Last time I checked, there was no law against shooting a bear off a gut pile(B.C). A gut pile is a natural by product of a successfull hunt, not a stategically placed bait station.

RO

I think this is one of those "gray areas", personally it doesn't matter to me either way, but I have heard mention in past discussions that its considered baiting when hunting off gutpiles. Maybe someone more "in the know" has an answer to this.

[Triggerman]

Re -read the regs regarding " Baiting"

[Schmaus]

Ok I looked this up but it still may not close the case. On page 16 of the regs it says: "bear may not be hunted by placing bait or by using a dead animal or part of it as bait". This is the only thing I could find on baiting.

[mainland hunter]

so what if you shoot one thats in a berry patch. or if u plug one and hes eating and its not till after hes down u see he's on a gut pile. i can see not allowing baiting for placed baits but the law is a little silly when it comes to a gutpile. imo

[bsa30-06]

Ok I looked this up but it still may not close the case. On page 16 of the regs it says: "bear may not be hunted by placing bait or by using a dead animal or part of it as bait". This is the only thing I could find on baiting.

It seems clear to me. The gut pile would be part of a dead animal therefore shooting something of a known gut pile seems to me to be baiting.If you shot an animal that was feeding in the trees or tall grass and found out later there was a gut pile that you didn't see i would call that an accident, after all i'm not going to walk over to find out what its eating before i shoot it.but thats just my opinion.

[Marc]

I shot a bear last fall and when I went up to it it was beded down next to another bear it was feeding on:eek: . Stupid me, that afternoon the CO's come into camp and see the bear in the truck, I show them my lisence and tell them about the other bear it was feeding on. It never crossed my mind that it could be considered baiting. I didn't know that there was a bear dead on the ground covered in leaves until I shot the bear and went to gut it. They never batted an eye lash or asked where the other bear was. If you look behind me to the left of the picture you can see the head of the other bear.

Marc.

http://www.huntingbc.ca/photos/data/500/3marc_with_two_bear.jpg

[Elkhound]

It seems clear to me. The gut pile would be part of a dead animal therefore shooting something of a known gut pile seems to me to be baiting.If you shot an animal that was feeding in the trees or tall grass and found out later there was a gut pile that you didn't see i would call that an accident, after all i'm not going to walk over to find out what its eating before i shoot it.but thats just my opinion. This has always been my understanding...... Marc did not know the bear carcass was there......not baiting......If you knew ahead of time.....baiting.

[mainland hunter]

thats why they should leave gut piles out of this particular regulation. you can just tell a CO you didnt know it was there. thats why i think its a silly law. baiting should only be illegal when your bringing foreign matter into the woods with the intention of hunting over that bait

[bsa30-06]

Elkhound , your absolutley right thats how i would interpret the regs in regards to this issue.

[Schmaus]

I knew this wouldn't close the case there is always different ways to interpret information.

[Gateholio]

I jsut rread that article today, thougth it was odd.

In the same issue, it talks of an outfitter dropping off 2 guys to hunt, it seems without a guide.

From thier descriptions (we have hunted Alaska withotu a guide before) they seem like non residents of BC...But I only scanned the article.

WHie I have a feeling that it is common practice for guides to return to gutpiles, form my understanding, it is ilegal.

[RiverOtter]

I definately think the regulations could be clearer on the issue.

A gut pile(So long as it is not transported from where the critter died) is no different than hunting over a good fishing hole, berry patch or a clover covered landing. IMHO.

As it stands now, I would not brag to a C.O. about dumping a bear on a gutpile, but I would sure fight it in court if I ever got ticketed for "baiting" when I did not transport the "food source" to that location. The fact that I didn't have anything to do with the location of the food source(aside from legally shooting another animal where the opportunity was presented) is grounds for arguing the "baiting" issue.

Anyone ever chat with a C.O. on this issue? Or is it one of those laws that is left up to a court to decide?

RO

[Hanrahan]

If the guy in the story shot the elk first and then the bear on his gutpile that he knew was there then I think the spirit of the law is being broken. Any guide (or hunter) can tell you that the odds of finding a bear on a fresh gutpile are pretty good and you can't tell me that a guide looking for a fat tip wouldn't return to a gutpile to get his client his bear. It's not REALLY baiting but like I said - its the spirit of the law being broken. I don't know - my 2 cents.

[Mr. Dean]

I definately think the regulations could be clearer on the issue.

A gut pile(So long as it is not transported from where the critter died) is no different than hunting over a good fishing hole, berry patch or a clover covered landing. IMHO.

A very loud SECOND!!

[ratherbefishin]

The issue is a bit clouded-on one hand I see that transporting food to a site is clearly baiting-but the gut pile issue is a bit harder to define,especially if it wan;t from the animal you shot.That also raises a couple of other points-what about a horse or cow a farmer has shot-and you come across a bear feeding on the carcass-is that a legally taken bear?Is the onus on you to prove you didn't know about it?One could argue the prime reason the horse or cow was shot was not for bear bait, but to dispose of it,and the bear happened upon it.Who decides?

[Gateholio]

I have had the interpretation explained to me like this:

If you *KNOW* the carcass is there, and you shoot a bear off it, you are guilty of BAITING, just as much as if you had placed the carcass there yourself.

Proving this can be challenging, I am sure. Especially if they are trying to prove that you *kne* a cow carcass was there, but the cow was not yours.

Personally, I don't see what the big deal about baiting is. When I read what the bear baiters (in baiting legal provinces) go through...it seems like a hell of alot more work than what we in BC do to catch a bear.

IN most of BC, the prefereed method for bear hunting is usualy the F250 Spot and Stalk. Which is alot less effort and aot more fun than dragging bait bins around, I am sure!!8)

[30-06]

Brambles, I read that story as well. The guy had a combo hunt booked elk/grizzly and after he shot his elk, he went back the next day and shot a grizzly that was feeding on the gut pile. Last time I checked, there was no law against shooting a bear off a gut pile(B.C). A gut pile is a natural by product of a successfull hunt, not a stategically placed bait station.
when i was doing my core the examiner said that you can shoot an animal off a gun pile.as long as the gut pile isnt yours...becasue of liek gatehouse said it is baiting if you know it is there.

[ratherbefishin]

ok-so what about this-I was up on a moose hunt a couple of years ago,and one of the guys said he shot a moose on the road[doesn't tell me exactly where] ,and I'm driving down the road and see an eagle and some ravens sitting in a cotton wood.Now-that tells me two things-one, chances are that is where the gut pile is, and[2]the fact the ravens and eagle are sitting in the tree rather than down on the ground scavenging, tells me there is a bear on it.
It was early in our hunt ,the weather was warm and although I had a bear tag,chose not to take the bear[which in fact was there, it ran out onto the road]But-had I taken the bear-was that baiting,or was it just knowing what to look for[ravens in the tree]?

[30-06]

well if it wasent ur animals gut pile then no it isnt baiting.even if it was still eating it and u shot it it isnt baiting becuase u didnt put the gut pile there\.even though your friend shot it you didnt so u can shoot it.

[Gateholio]

ok-so what about this-I was up on a moose hunt a couple of years ago,and one of the guys said he shot a moose on the road[doesn't tell me exactly where] ,and I'm driving down the road and see an eagle and some ravens sitting in a cotton wood.Now-that tells me two things-one, chances are that is where the gut pile is, and[2]the fact the ravens and eagle are sitting in the tree rather than down on the ground scavenging, tells me there is a bear on it.
It was early in our hunt ,the weather was warm and although I had a bear tag,chose not to take the bear[which in fact was there, it ran out onto the road]But-had I taken the bear-was that baiting,or was it just knowing what to look for[ravens in the tree]?


From what I understand it is that you had "knowledge ofthe attractant' and therefore woud have been illegal...But I ain't no lawyer8)

[ratherbefishin]

has anyone actually been charged and convicted for shooting a bear found on a gut pile?

[Brambles]

ok-so what about this-I was up on a moose hunt a couple of years ago,and one of the guys said he shot a moose on the road[doesn't tell me exactly where] ,and I'm driving down the road and see an eagle and some ravens sitting in a cotton wood.Now-that tells me two things-one, chances are that is where the gut pile is, and[2]the fact the ravens and eagle are sitting in the tree rather than down on the ground scavenging, tells me there is a bear on it.
It was early in our hunt ,the weather was warm and although I had a bear tag,chose not to take the bear[which in fact was there, it ran out onto the road]But-had I taken the bear-was that baiting,or was it just knowing what to look for[ravens in the tree]?

I'd say your safe on this one, you don't know for a fact or not if the carcass is really there. Just because you were observant enough to see an eagle and raven on a tree and actually draw the line making the assumption that there was a gutpile. IMO you were just thinking too much, in some cases ignorance is bliss.;-)

Its just another example of stupid regulations, now on the other hand I heard of a G.O. who got nabbed when he had his client shoot a grizz off a horse carcass that G.O. had shot and left specifically for this purpose. Ballsey move on his part me thinks:shock:

[Gateholio]

has anyone actually been charged and convicted for shooting a bear found on a gut pile?

Good question!!

I think anyone that was to get charged woudl be damn unucky or damn stupid!8)

[GoatGuy]

has anyone actually been charged and convicted for shooting a bear found on a gut pile?

I know of two outfitters that were charged but not convicted- mostly because the CO's screwed up the investigation on both counts.


Hunting over a gutpile is baiting-----regardless of whether you've moved it or not.

This includes any carcass that you know is there!

The 'intent' of the regulations is to keep hunters from hunting over dead meat as this makes bear hunting WAYyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy easier (particularly for grizz).

In life some people look at the rules and make a conscious decision to live with them.

Others will try to make a play on words and look for the holes in it. From there they'll make some sort of self-justifying statement.



When it comes to regs if all else fails, apply common sense.

[dana]

If someone is willing to sit a gutpile off a critter they killed when the regs say you can't, what else are they willing to do? Pop a couple of moose in the spring as grizzly bait? I see no gray area here. If they killed a grizz off a known gutpile then they are POACHERS. You can try to justify the argument of why all you want. It still is against the law.

[ratherbefishin]

I agree the question largely comes down to personal ethics, but at the same time the legal issue is still there-did you or did not know there was a gut pile there-and the question might be, how could that be proven in court.Clearly, if a a CO came across someone setting up 100 yards away from a gut pile,it would be dificult to prove they didn't know it was there-but in the case I posted- I saw eagles and ravens sitting in a tree-and surmised, correctly, there was a bear feeding on something-which I could have seen anywhere in the bush.During hunting season there is invariably going to be gut piles and also unrecovered game which is going to attract bears-in fact that is likely an important food source to them,especially in areas without salmon spawning streams.[let the anti hunters ponder that question!]
Personally,I would be EXTREMELY cautious about approaching any known kill site when grizzlies are known to be in the area-I don;t want to surprise a bear sleeping in the vicinity who has ''claimed'' the food source-it's a great way to turn your life insurance policy into a guaranteed investment.

[kutenay]

I think that it is "baiting" and "poaching" IF and ONLY IF you actually knew a given carcass/gutpile was in a specific location; determining that some sort of food source exists at a given location by observing the actions of other fauna is just good bushsense, IMO, isn't that what hunting is supposed to be all about?

I try to avoid gutpile locations in Grizzly areas and have had some tense moments while hunting in the Muskwa and Gatho areas due to gutpiles and dense Black Spruce cover. I have zero interest in shooting bears of any type, never have had, but, I would also have little objection to baiting for L.E.H. bears due to the large/growing populations in most parts of the Province. I firmly believe in managing population levels of wildlife through hunting and other practical human use of the resource and, as long as the kill is humane, I see no problem with baiting bears, Coyotes, Wolves or whatever.

It really comes down to, as others have said, your personal ethics and how an individual behaves while in the bush alone is, IMO, a very good indicator of their over-all character in general. That said, the current hunting and angling regs. in B.C. are far too complex and should be re-written to be more "user-friendly" for us, the owners of the resource.