Hunter's rights reinstated

[fireonethree]

Hey Guys,

Just thought I would let you in on some good news this week.

For the past two editions, the Hunting and Trapping Synopsis has had a very important article inadvertently left out of the "It's Unlawful" section, due to streamlining and making the Regulations more user friendly.

The wording that has been removed is part of section 80 of the Wildlife Act:

Obstructing licensed persons:
"A person commits an offence if the person interferes with or obstructs a person licensed or permitted to capture wildlife or to hunt, fish, guide or trap while that person is lawfully so engaged."

Of all the 'Unlawfuls" in the Regulations, this was the only one that reminds hunters that we have rights, and that our right to hunt is enforceable by law. It is a shame that this important wording was omitted at all, and started me down a road to seek some changes.

I have had a number of communications with the Ministry of the Environment and Conservation Officers, but this has gone nowhere. I figured a last resort would be to go directly to the Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Barry Penner, and ask him to look into this issue as I have had no luck in recieving a reply from anyone.

Within a couple weeks, I received a reply from his representative (Min. of Env.) that this request to have the article reinstated back into the Regulations has been approved, and will appear in the 2007/08 Synopsis.

This might not be a huge issue for all of us, but it was important to me when Thunderstix and I were forced to abandon a bear stalk because we were interrupted by some 'concerned citizens' that were ignorant to the Regulations and the rights of hunters.

Good luck out there this season!!!

-fireonethree

[K-1]

FOT: well done!!!! thanks for your time and effort . It's time we as hunters stand up and say "I have rights also"

[CanAm500]

Well done. And we should look for that in next years regs.

[Rainwater]

On another note on page 8 it states it is unlawful to hunt in a National Park. This is clearly a lie and I wrote Parks Canada. They will not change or remove this add. They are liars and lull people into believing that there is never any hunting in a National Park, pure bunk!

[rollingrock]

On another note on page 8 it states it is unlawful to hunt in a National Park. This is clearly a lie and I wrote Parks Canada. They will not change or remove this add. They are liars and lull people into believing that there is never any hunting in a National Park, pure bunk!

Why so?
I've always thought it's unlawful to hunt in a national park.

[rollingrock]

This might not be a huge issue for all of us, but it was important to me when Thunderstix and I were forced to abandon a bear stalk because we were interrupted by some 'concerned citizens' that were ignorant to the Regulations and the rights of hunters.



-fireonethree

Unbelievable! Any details of this incident if you don't mind?

[Rainwater]

Rolling Rock, First Nations are permitted to hunt in some of the National Parks listed in our regulations, they are also permitted to gather natural objects and carry firearms, you would'nt believe it from this add though would you!

[Hank Hunter]

Good work Fireonethree.

[rollingrock]

Rolling Rock, First Nations are permitted to hunt in some of the National Parks listed in our regulations, they are also permitted to gather natural objects and carry firearms, you would'nt believe it from this add though would you!

First Nations...
:twisted: I guess that the animals in a National Park aren't that spooked!

[fireonethree]

Rollingrock and all,

Thanks for the replies.

Well, in a nutshell. We were hunting spring bears with bows, and found a nice one off of the highway to stalk. I was halfway up a hillside when a vehicle drove past, stopped at my truck about 150 yards away, and then turned around and started heading to our location.

I made my way back down to the shoulder, and motioned for them to slow down as they approached. They stopped right beside me, and the passenger leaned out, took my picture and said " we have pictures of your truck and now we have pictures of you poaching bears, and we are going to report you to the CO's".

To be honest, what I felt like doing, and what I did do were two different things. I managed to tell them that they were interfering in a lawful hunt, and this action is a chargeable offence, and they should leave before I contact the CO's about this.

Well, they didn't leave, and we had some words. I asked Thunderstix to get my camera from the truck so we had photos as well. Turns out the bear left, and then they did after I got some photos.

The first thing I did when we got home was reported this incident to the CO office, and wrote out full documentation of the events. The CO was very cooperative, and pursued this investigation fully. He was very thorough in his questioning and cross examining, to make sure I knew what the Regulations were, and to determine if I was at fault at all. I wasn't.

The end result was a 'he said - she said' debate, with no real evidence to lay charges against them, which I had asked for. He did manage to 'educate' these two about the Regulations and hunting rights.

It was a real eye-opener how passionate some enviros are, but not educated. These two claimed they were lawyers (which one was for sure), and claimed to know the Law. I just replied that they weren't very good ones because they were wrong, and should look up the right information before making accusations. The real kicker was when the female said I should hunt deer, not black bears. I guess when you are a lawyer, you are that much closer to God, and can decide which species are allowed to live and which are allowed to die.

-fireonethree

[mainland hunter]

its amazing how many people believe black bears are endangered. ive found in talking with people that a large percentage of the non hunting communtiy believe that they are a rare species.

[rollingrock]

The real kicker was when the female said I should hunt deer, not black bears. I guess when you are a lawyer, you are that much closer to God, and can decide which species are allowed to live and which are allowed to die.

-fireonethree

wordless....:roll:

[bsa30-06]

I bet they were a little stunned when a co contacted them to ask what the hell they were doing, and even more stunned when they found out they were WRONG.Here they thought they were repoting a poacher and ended up breaking the law themselves.

[Radar]

LOL @ the story, lawyers enough said...always good when you manage to get something changed, good job!

[Steeleco]

Great work FOT, maybe the legal beagles should learn the difference between a rifle and a bow. The later isn't exactly a "gas and dash" kind of tool!!
And a real poacher may not have been as willing to debate the issue and just dealt with them?

[GoatGuy]

Good work FOT nice to see someone on the lookout for the rest of us.

[lapadat]

FireOneThree - Excellent work - Good that you didn't lose your head....and that you took some good notes.

I find that when dealing with uninformed people, it is key to explain where your authority comes from and what law supports your hunting activities.

You can tell them that "Section 80 of the Wildlife Act of BC prevents you from interfering with my lawful/legal hunting and if you continue you will be committing an offence which is punishable up to $50,000 or to a term of 6 months imprisonment".

Lapadat


Link to the Wildlife Act of BC
http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/W/96488_01.htm

[BCLongshot]

Excellent work buddy. I'm proud to be associated !!!

They are lucky that you were as calm as you were.

You are a true sportsman for going the extra, extra mile.

[huntwriter]

Hey Guys,

Just thought I would let you in on some good news this week.

For the past two editions, the Hunting and Trapping Synopsis has had a very important article inadvertently left out of the "It's Unlawful" section, due to streamlining and making the Regulations more user friendly.

The wording that has been removed is part of section 80 of the Wildlife Act:

Obstructing licensed persons:
"A person commits an offence if the person interferes with or obstructs a person licensed or permitted to capture wildlife or to hunt, fish, guide or trap while that person is lawfully so engaged."

Of all the 'Unlawfuls" in the Regulations, this was the only one that reminds hunters that we have rights, and that our right to hunt is enforceable by law. It is a shame that this important wording was omitted at all, and started me down a road to seek some changes.

I have had a number of communications with the Ministry of the Environment and Conservation Officers, but this has gone nowhere. I figured a last resort would be to go directly to the Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Barry Penner, and ask him to look into this issue as I have had no luck in recieving a reply from anyone.

Within a couple weeks, I received a reply from his representative (Min. of Env.) that this request to have the article reinstated back into the Regulations has been approved, and will appear in the 2007/08 Synopsis.

This might not be a huge issue for all of us, but it was important to me when Thunderstix and I were forced to abandon a bear stalk because we were interrupted by some 'concerned citizens' that were ignorant to the Regulations and the rights of hunters.

Good luck out there this season!!!

-fireonethree

That's the best pice of news I have heard in a very long time. Good on you to work so hard to get that very important message back into the regulations. I am sure there might be some special interest people and supporters who would like us to forget that we as hunters have rights and that such rights are protected under the law.

[fireonethree]

Hey guys,

Thanks for all the support.

The one thing I can say about that issue with the lawyers was that the CO was great to deal with. I figured they might shy away from this type of attention, but the guy that I was dealing with was a straight shooter and told it like it was. You can't really ask for anything more.

We will just have to wait and see if the changes to the Synopsis make it into next years printing. I will be hanging onto the email from the Ministry just in case they need a reminder next year.

-fireonethree

[Radar]

If it doesn't make it in forward it to me I'd like to use it with my local MLA to find out why it didn't. I'm sure if everyone on here had a copy of the email and wrote a polite but to the point letter to the MOE we would see some action....

I don't see any reason why it could not of been added today on their web-site as an adidtion, they do that each year with things they "missed" in the synopsis, just an idea....

[fireonethree]

UPDATE.

Well, I don't really know what to say on this one, so I'm just going to post it here and hope that some more voices can help this along.

If you read back to the start of the thread, you'll se that there was an important issue omitted from the Regulations over the past couple of years that outlines our rights as hunters.

After contacting the Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Barry Penner, I was assured that this section was to be reinstated in this year's publication.

IT FAILED TO MAKE IT INTO THE PUBLICATION...AGAIN.

[fireonethree]

Opps...I must have hit the wrong key and posted before I was done...

Anyways, I wrote the Ministry four weeks ago asking why this section was not reinstated, as they had said last year, (addressed to three different people that were included in the Min.'s original reply) and I never recieved a reply.

I also sent an email to the Minister himself two weeks ago, and haven't heard back yet either...but that is a little too soon to expect a reply from the office.

This week, I mailed a hand-written letter directly to Minister Penner, and I hope this will finally encourage someone within the ranks of the Ministry to step up to the plate and offer an answer. I have never suggested that I am looking for a fallguy on this issue, but I have suggested that the silence from the office is disrespectful, to say the least. It is amazing how no one has the guts to say "I messed up" anymore...no, not amazing, more like embarassing!!

I'll let you all know if I hear anything back in the next week or so. If not, maybe we need to bring this issue out on a larger scale by having the members of the forum contact their MLA's.

My good news from last year seems to be an empty promise...sorry for misleading everyone!!

-FOT-

[fireonethree]

Here's a copy of their reply from last year:

Thank you for your e-mail dated July 12, 2006 addressed to the Honourable Barry Penner, Minister of Environment, regarding the Hunting and Trapping Regulations Synopsis. Your e-mail has been forwarded to me for response on behalf of the Minister.
Over the past few years, Fish and Wildlife Branch staff have been reorganizing the Hunting and Trapping Regulations Synopsis to make it more user friendly. The statement that you refer to, "it is unlawful to interfere with a lawful hunt" which appeared in the "It's Unlawful" section was inadvertently removed from the synopsis.
The prohibition continues to be in effect under section 80 of the Wildlife Act:
Obstructing licensed persons
80 A person commits an offence if the person interferes with or obstructs a person licensed or permitted to capture wildlife or to hunt, fish, guide or trap while that person is lawfully so engaged.
The statement will be reinstated in the 2007/2008 Hunting and Trapping Regulations Synopsis.
Thank you for bringing this omission to our attention.

-FOT-

[BCBear]

I for one was unaware of section 80. I just made a copy of it and will place it in my hunting papers in case an "education situation" pops up out in the field. Your efforts are applauded8) by me, maybe next year it will be published.

[Steeleco]

They could at the very least add the omission to the
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wild/hunting/regulations/0708/corrections.html
page now in use on the online version of the regs!

[GoatGuy]

The synopsis is only a summary of the Wildlife Act. I think it's great that you're looking out for us all and applaud your efforts, however changes to the Wildlife Act have to be heard and passed in Vic - with the rewrite that will not happen until the fall and there is no intention to remove the section you're talking about.

In short just because they don't all appear in the regulations they are still in the wildlife act. Printed out the Wildlife Act is around 60 pages in total, a little long to put in the synopsis.

I think the concept of obstruction or the sentiment applies to anti-hunters or others who may want to impeded legal hunters. As a result, putting it in the hunting regs doesn't inform the people who need to know about it.

Keep up the good work.


Here you are


Obstructing licensed persons

80 A person commits an offence if the person interferes with or obstructs a person licensed or permitted to capture wildlife or to hunt, fish, guide or trap while that person is lawfully so engaged.

[Walksalot]

Good on you Fireonethree and thanks for defending our right to hunt.

[Walksalot]

Rolling Rock, First Nations are permitted to hunt in some of the National Parks listed in our regulations, they are also permitted to gather natural objects and carry firearms, you would'nt believe it from this add though would you!

If I understand it correctly I don't think any one is allowed to hunt in a National Park. Where the First Nations People are allowed hunt is in a National Park Reserve. The national park proposed for the South Okanagan is one such National Park Reserve. The reason being that the National Park Reserve proposed for the South Okanagan includes First Nation's land.

[kennyg826]

Good work. Patience over emotion will always win!

[fireonethree]

I'm not looking to change the Wildlife Act, I would just like to see this section reinstated back into the Synopsis. I understand that the Synposis is a summary of the Act, and that the law regarding interference still applies.

When it was removed from the publication, it also prevented many hunters from reading about their rights. I agree 100% that the anti-hunters need to educate themselves about hunting, and they would generally not read this is in the Synopsis. Including section 80 back into the Synopsis would mainly be for hunters to be aware of our lawful rights to enjoy the sport we participate in.

It seems that there is hardly a page in the Synopsis that doesn't state something about illegal hunting activities- from conviction results for poaching, the obvious unlawful section and the numerous pages including the poaching hotline number. When I read this from cover to cover, I get the feeling that the Synopsis is more about telling me what I can't do, rather than telling me to go out and enjoy the outdoors. Reinstating this one section will send a message to all hunters that today we still enjoy a legal sport...tomorrow, of course, is a different story.

In the story where we were stopped by those two lawyers in the previous pages, I had the knowledge to confront their attacks, but lacked the 'proof' in printed format that would have eliminated the personal opinion argument that we engaged in. Not everyone should have to carry around the Wildlife Act to justify their actions, but most of us usually have a copy of the Synopsis kicking around during hunting season. With more and more people turning their backs on the opportunities of hunting, those of us that do hunt should know the facts in case we run into confrontations.

Thanks for the post, and I'll let you know if I hear back from the officials...

-FOT-

[Wildfoot]

just a question about the interfering with someones hunt law...

if I go into an area and other hunters chase me out on quads and refuse to leave until i am out of their chunk of public land.. its this illegal?

What If I am stalking a deer with my bow, only to have a guy with a rifle take it while im still stalking? Is the rifle hunter in the wrong?

How about if people go to a known area that is frequented by hunters and do anything within their abilities to scare off wildlife?

[sparkes3]

way to go man.but i would really like to see them go to court for that.keep that in mind guys and push hard when its your rights they are messing with.

[CanAm500]

Did the reinstate the wording of section 80?

[fireonethree]

I haven't heard back from the Ministry yet, and section 80 is not reinstated in the Synopsis. It has been removed for at least the two past publications.

-FOT-

[mapguy]

wife and i were prevented from hunting once we parked at the end of a road and were going to walk in to an area . this couple who had bought a small lot
said we couldn't hunt there it got to a point where i would of had to smack him to even get my rifle out of the vehicle advised them there were interfering with a legal hunt .we reported it but the rcmp wouldn't do nothing about it .
has anyone ever been charged with that

[Gateholio]

[QUOTE=Wildfoot;170588]just a question about the interfering with someones hunt law...

if I go into an area and other hunters chase me out on quads and refuse to leave until i am out of their chunk of public land.. its this illegal?

Yes, noone has a rigth to obstruct you form acessing crown land



What If I am stalking a deer with my bow, only to have a guy with a rifle take it while im still stalking? Is the rifle hunter in the wrong?

No, unless he was knowingly trying to screw with you, and that would be tough to prove.



How about if people go to a known area that is frequented by hunters and do anything within their abilities to scare off wildlife?

Probably, but you'd have to prove that they were doing it to interfere wiht hunitng.

[fireonethree]

Mapguy,

I don't know if anyone has been charged with interfering. When I called the CO to report our incident, he was fairly 'excited' to pursue this claim because he said he never had dealt with this type of problem, usually, it is investigating poor hunting practices.

If there had been more solid evidence (beyond the he-said-she-said level), he would have laid charges aginst the lawyers that had interfered. I managed to take pictures of their vehicle and the occupants, but this only proved that they were there, and not that they did anything illegal. The CO was interested in my statement where I said the female had started to yell at the bear to scare it off - and this was definitely interference!!... but difficult to prove. Now, if I had a video camera recording this incident, we would have a different story!!

This at least encouraged me to think that THIS CO was out there for the right reason - to find and represent the truth.

-FOT-

[mapguy]

yes i guess we'll just have to deal with it i've even had a lady police officer that wasn't even aware of a legal hunting area or season . but then why would a none hunter know anthing about the rules

[happygilmore]

I have had to use it twice...
Once I shot a little buck and some lady saw it happen, I guess she was a little upset because she had been feeding it like a pet for some time. Well she came ripping over in her car and went bezerk, I informed her that feeding a wild animal was imoral, she got right in my face screaming about calling the cops, I told her good because she was interfereing with a legal hunt. When the rcmp came to my house I explained to them what happened and he quickly went and explained things to her.

Second,
I was watching a coyote accross the hood of my truck parked on the side of the road while my buddy walked down and crossed the fence, he shot, missed and walked back to the truck and the RCMP pulled up and stated that I had shot from the road (or so it had been reported) and you couldn't hunt from that road you had to be a mile and a half from the road. (Now I know I shouldn't have been watching through my scope and it was asking for trouble.)I informed the officer that he was thinking of the coquihilla and this road was so many meters or the fence whichever came first and there are phil's tracks crossing the fence and if you want to dig around in the snow you could probably find his casing. So the officer went back to his patrol car and attempted to get ahold of a CO. after about an hour and fifteen minutes I had had enough and told the cop he was detaining me for no good reason and was interfereing with a legal hunt, If I turned out to be wrong he had my address and would know where to find me.
All hunters should read the wildlife act and that paragraph needs to be in the regs so hunters are aware of their rights and should not be afraid to enforce them.

[fireonethree]

I had a reply from the Ministry today:


Hello Mr. Beckwith, I apologize for the delay in responding.

You are correct. The re-insertion of the prohibition "it is unlawful to interfere with a lawful hunt" was overlooked when updating the synopsis this year. We will be updating the on-line version of the synopsis in the next few weeks and will include this statement. The on-line synopsis will be the starting point for the 2008-09 synopsis so it will not be a problem again next year.

I apologize for the oversight and thank you again for bringing the omission to our attention.

It is unfortunate that this was overlooked this year, especially after the assurance that it would be included from over a year of correspondence, and three years of frustration and dead ends on this issue.

We can only hope that it is included next year, as they suggest.

Don't worry, the documentation for this file is always handy, and I'll be sending a reminder next spring to make sure this one isn't forgotten.

Thanks for the posts.

-FOT-

[Steeleco]

Well done, The wheel got some grease this time:wink::wink:

[abbyfireguy]

[quote]

Probably, but you'd have to prove that they were doing it to interfere wiht hunitng.

They could get charged with harassing wildlife..
That would be a nice turn of the tables...:mrgreen:

[BCBear]

You think this would have been a no brainer for the 2007-08 synopsis given the push by gov't to recruit more hunters. What newbie contemplating the prerequisites necessary to enter the hobby wants to read a synopsis that does not support him/her as a hunter and reads full of don'ts and better nots.

[fireonethree]

Well, I don't know what to say other than I checked the online synopsis tonight and on page 18, number 18 now says:


"You should also know it’s unlawful:

...........................

18.

to interfere with or obstruct a person
licensed or permitted to hunt, guide or
trap while that person is lawfully so
engaged."



I am pretty happy to see this article back into the publication, with guarantees that it will make the paper version next year.


Thanks for the posts of support over the past couple of years!!!



Here's the link:




http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/hunting/regulations/0708/docs/Hunting_Regulations.pdf




-FOT-

[Will]

Well, I don't know what to say other than I checked the online synopsis tonight...

Well done and good for you....this "oversight" would obviously not have come undone without your efforts.
Thanks for that :smile:

[Paulyman]

Thanks fireonethree!

[mooseless]

yes! Excellent work fireonthree!

[fuzzwilkens]

Great work Fireonethree. I've been following your battle since last year and its great to see some progress.

[Thunderstix]

Fire13! Where you is?

[johnes50]

Good work fireonethree. You've done a great service to all hunters. It shows that one man can bring about changes in the regs "if" he has a willing ear.

[MRBucks]

I'm suprised that the incident that you speak of, needed evidence to the point of needing a video of the exchange. There was an eye witness (your partner) who could testify as to what took place. If an eye witness's testimony isn't enough, and they figured it was just a case of, you said/ they said, then what hope does the average hunter have of having a harraser actually charged? It may be awful hard to prove a "hunter harrasement" case, as almost always it would circumstances such as yours. A lone hunter getting harrased would never be able to prove harrasment, if the CO/RCMP need evidence to lay charges, if they can't go on what one reported. The law appears to be nothing more than a threat against the anti's, perhaps to disuade them, but it sounds like it would be another story to actually get a conviction, let alone charges laid. Very sad...

[newhunterette]

Standin ovation for FIREONETHREE good on you :)

Ali

[Jagermeister]

Fire13, Above and beyond the call of duty. Thankyou!

[fin241]

Very informative thread you've created FOT....great job and a great effort you've put forward. Give yourself a pat on the back.

[BCLongshot]

Excellent

I would never let someone bug me when doing anything anyways.

Even skateboarding or like the time I farted in a gun store in Vanderhoof and this guy came over and said don't do that here. I pulled his shirt over his head and farted again. Now he sends me e-mails constantly. lol lol

[Tron]

I had no idea we had Rights like that. Thanks for bring this to my attention and thanks for your hard work. I will be reading the Wild Life Act.

Thanks to everyone else for there story's.

[fireonethree]

Hey,

I am very happy to say that the latest publication of the Hunting and Trapping Synopsis (2008-09) does include the statement that it is unlawful to interfere with someone that is legally hunting.

That was a long stretch to get this back into the publication, but I hope we can all appreciate that it is reinstated, and that it will remain in the future publications of the Regulations.

Good luck out there,

-FOT-

[BCBear]

this positive change is no doubt due to your persistance with the issue. good work. Pg 18 #18 of synopsis.

[ydouask]

We hunters all owe you a debt of gratitude Fireonethree. Well Done !

[Icedog]

Well done, and much appreciated by all F13! Never had to deal too much with this issue when hunting, but when I had a trapline some years ago it was a different story, what with self righteous Walt Disney groupies messing with legally set traps. Great to have "harvesters'" rights back in print in the regs both to remind us we have them, and to allow us to point that out to the antis with some authority.

[Bigbear]

Well Done Fireonethree

[Jager-mister?]

Thank you for standing up for all of us and thanks for your efforts!

[BigBanger]

Thanks man , your a class act guy .

[Tikka7mm]

Wow! Persistence pays....thanks a bunch Fire13. This is a law I never really knew anything about prior to reading this thread. I'm glad there are people out there like you who are willing to both educate and stand up for hunter’s rights. I have printed and laminated a copy of this wording from Section 80 of the wildlife act and will be sure to carry it with me from here on in whenever I decide to go out hunting.

You never know...it might come in handy one day.

[anglo-saxon]

Very well done, mate! Good on ya!! A decent result. Not forgetting that there are many who will be reading that for the first time. We must not underestimate its importance.

I always say if I want my car fixed, I talk to the mechanic, not the oily rag. Well done you for going to the top.

[Timber-hunt]

Job well done thanks

[Avalanche123]

Good job FOT. I recall the icident you had with your partner as I believe he posted about it on here.

[Fisher-Dude]

Thanks for seeing it through F13. It's guys like you who will help ensure our heritage isn't lost.