Missing something in regs?

[russm86]

So it has always been my understanding that you can only tag what you shoot / shoot what you can tag. However I have been seeing and hearing lots about guys shooting eachothers animals or guides shooting clients animals. To be clear I'm talking about when they are all hunting side by side kinda thing, not calling the guy up at home and telling him to tag something, this I'm sure must be a no no. Anyways, the one thing I have found in the regs was "It is unlawful to use another person’s licence or permit, or to loan or transfer any licence or permit under any circumstances." But not real sure if that's the right statement or not as it was found at the end of the Duplicate Licenses heading. So am I missing something or is this actually legal? Or is it maybe just something thats too hard to enforce? Or do COs just not concern themselves with this as long as there are tags cut for legal animals and everything is accounted for? Or maybe they just "overlook" this whole matter?

[Darksith]

the shooter must have a tag, that is the rule. That being said it would be impossible for the CO to prove who the shooter was unless he was there at the time of the shot watching IMO. Who lets someone else shoot their animal? I haven't read any stories on here that say this is how it went down...and I think it becomes a matter of ethics more than anything. A backup shooter should always take a shot if its needed, it is in the best interest of the animal and the harvesting of that animal, and personally I have no problem if it is agreed upon by the group as to who can shoot. I have a friend that let his hunting partners son shoot his moose, I see no problem with that as they were all hunting together. The problem with the tag holder not shooting is what if there is confusion and you end up with 2 animals down b/c the backup shooter was looking at a different animal.

Just my .02 though, Im no expert.
And I would never let a guide to shoot my animal

[russm86]

I'm with you though I guess, as long as you are hunting with the person directly in your company I can't see too much harm I mean both people would see it and either would have the same shot at it kinda thing. As far as I know only one person was actually going to take any shots at it too. But not any really unfair advantage that I can think of. Where I have heard it the most is older guys hunting with their sons, though their sons are old enough to hunt on their own (older than 18) and everything too, but the fathers are there more cuz they like to just get out and get some meat as much as anything and spend time with family. The older guys have had their many years of shooting animals and so they let their sons make the shots for them. Also, I have actually seen at least one thread on this site telling a story of a guided hunt, and I can't remember if the guide did actually shoot the animal or if it was just offered, for some reason I feel that the guide was the one that made the kill though. But I'm not going to mention the post or any names due to not wanting to make anything of it.

[Freshtracks]

russm86 ... it's all pretty simple, with a few grey areas you mentioned.

Hunter A can shoot X mulie's/whitetail/moose/elk ect ... according to the reg's and having tags. Hunter B can do like wise.

If hunter A & B are together, and hunter A tags his mulie ... he shouldn't be shooting hunter B's mulie. The grey area is father/son. Though not legitamite as per reg's ... ethically some fathers turn a blind eye to allowing jr to do the shooting on their tag. There's dads that like to reverse it and hunt on jr's tag ... IMO ... you're a poacher. Meat harvesting or not.

Shared moose hunts came about due to the term 'party hunting' ... member(s) of a group would shoot what tags were availble till filled. It is also done with deer, don't kid oneself. Herein is where you as a hunter have to develope ethics. Should one hunter shoot all the game that legal tags are carried. IMO ... NO!!! The sport of hunting about the 'sharing of the hunt.'

[Barracuda]

only the person holding a valid tag or lisence for the animal can shoot it not another person in the group etc even if they are right beside you they still cant shoot it unless they have a tag . Group shooting where a person (the shooter) in the group does not have a tag but another guy in the group does so he cuts it is just as illegal as out right poaching.

Ethics or lack of ethics becomes the issue here . The whole idea of cheating the rules and regs just so you can say you got your meat for the group etc is a pretty piss poor reason for not applying the rules to yourself.


how can a person be proud being a part of that?

The whole reason a person practices shooting, game behaviour understands the regs and maps and trains is to accomplish the goal within the rules .

[russm86]

Like I said in my first post, I have always thought it just illegal. Both barracuda and the others make some good points. I'm really starting to see how people's own beliefs, ethics, and interpretations come into hunting and the regulations. Just to throw another wrench in there, lol, here is another one I have heard about recently. Father and son, son is in early 30's i think, out hunting, niether have shot an animal this year yet, so both have available tags to fill, and the son shoots a buck and the father puts it on his tag... similar but in this one both guys did have free tags when the trigger was pulled...? I'm assuming it is not quite right again and again many have different opinions and ethics on it, just seeing if others think the same as myself or not. I'd be curious as to what exactly a few COs would have to say about this and if they are that concerned with something like that or have much bigger and worse things to worry about first... I feel like I'd be a stick in the mud if I were to speak my mind or say anything to those I have heard these things from...

[Freshtracks]

Like I said in my first post, I have always thought it just illegal. Both barracuda and the others make some good points. I'm really starting to see how people's own beliefs, ethics, and interpretations come into hunting and the regulations. Just to throw another wrench in there, lol, here is another one I have heard about recently. Father and son, son is in early 30's i think, out hunting, niether have shot an animal this year yet, so both have available tags to fill, and the son shoots a buck and the father puts it on his tag... similar but in this one both guys did have free tags when the trigger was pulled...? I'm assuming it is not quite right again and again many have different opinions and ethics on it, just seeing if others think the same as myself or not. I'd be curious as to what exactly a few COs would have to say about this and if they are that concerned with something like that or have much bigger and worse things to worry about first... I feel like I'd be a stick in the mud if I were to speak my mind or say anything to those I have heard these things from...

The only reason I see dad tagging the deer, is he probably only gets out once or twice and son hunts more. So again we're meat hunting. Legally ... the son shot the deer. Tag it. To prove it? Yep that grey harvesting area that some like to extend with reasoning for buying/getting value on a tag.

Me ... I'd let dad shoot and still bring him out as much as possible.

[russm86]

Yea we have always shot our own animals. I will often try to get my dad to shoot a little eating buck then I can be a little pickier and maybe go for a nice big one. But that hardly seems to work out much, same problem I get out way more than my dad ever does. So it usually goes the other way, I start to feel the pressure and want the meat so settle on whatever I can get and then have to try and drag my dad out constantly to try for a bigger one. Ain't that ironic, lol.

[Barracuda]

thats also a no no . you bag it you tag it . no grey area.

If BillyBob were to shoot a deer because BillyRay dont have the ability or opportunity and BillyRay cuts his tag instead of BillyBob it is pretty clearly against the regs:lol:


Thats like some guys that bring thier kids along fishing and catch thier limit and then they keep fishing and pretend (lie) that its the kid fishing or the fish allready caught are the kids . kinda pathetic but it does happen.






the regs are pretty easy to figure out for the most part i think as they are in black and white.

you will find the guys that cheat or try to dismiss rules that dont suit them always seem to have an justification like its not that important or everyone does it etc





just because one person doesnt agree with the rules and they choose to ignore them does not make it right and you shouldnt let that person of questionable character bully you into accepting thier illegal actions.

[carnivore]

This discussion is opening up a sensitive area that would best be described as " Tags of Convenience" . Tags of convenience mostly occur between husbands and wives, or mothers, mothers in law ,Grandmothers etc. A possible scenereo would be when a husband and wife each apply for a Limited Entry Draw. The wife is successful in getting a draw but the husband is not. They are hunting together when they spot the subject quarry and the wife says go ahead and shoot it for me, you are a better shot and I am nervious. The husband makes the shot and the wife tags the animal. This could also be the case when dealing with a standard GOS deer tag. For whatever reason the wife asks the husband to take the shot and she tags the animal. has an offence been committed?

[j270wsm]

My understanding was that you must have a valid tag to hunt, so in other words, if I have already shot an elk, legally I am not allowed to hunt/peruse elk.

[Drillbit]

Technically not allowed to be a back-up shooter without a tag for that species.

But, I think it's a good idea to have a back-up shooter so that every possible attempt to retrieve the animal is met.

Deer, both guys probably have a tag, but Grizzly/Buffalo....only one guy has a tag, and I think a back-up shooter should be ready and might help with a safe and ethical retrieval of the animal. Technically legal and illegal at the same time.

[Barracuda]

This discussion is opening up a sensitive area that would best be described as " Tags of Convenience" . Tags of convenience mostly occur between husbands and wives, or mothers, mothers in law ,Grandmothers etc. A possible scenereo would be when a husband and wife each apply for a Limited Entry Draw. The wife is successful in getting a draw but the husband is not. They are hunting together when they spot the subject quarry and the wife says go ahead and shoot it for me, you are a better shot and I am nervious. The husband makes the shot and the wife tags the animal. This could also be the case when dealing with a standard GOS deer tag. For whatever reason the wife asks the husband to take the shot and she tags the animal. has an offence been committed?

yes an offence has been committed.
My wife has practiced and trained and she would never even think of letting another person shoot her animal on her tag .

if a person gets nervous then work it out, if a person needs to practice shooting then then they should practice shooting and get close enough to be comfortable to shoot .

none of the reasons you cited are valid reasons to ignore who has the tag.

Hunting manners and methods are individual and each person chooses thier own code of conduct WITHIN the framework of the Game laws /Wildlife act in place.

A person does not have the right to authorize someone else to shoot on thier behalf .

Not only does the shooter rob the person with the tag of an earned accomplishment but the tagholder can hardley can hardly call themselves a hunter if they have to get someone else to shoot an animal for them. .

It is unfortunate that some people pressure thier wives , family or friends to participate in such behaviour

[anethema]

Ya there is no gray area. It is totally illegal.

That being said it is legal in many/most other provinces and I personally don't see an ethical problem with it as long as both hunters are together and there is no chance of shooting more than the group's tags.

THAT being said I don't participate in or condone any illegal activity. You probably shouldn't either.

[Barracuda]

Ya there is no gray area. It is totally illegal.

That being said it is legal in many/most other provinces and I personally don't see an ethical problem with it as long as both hunters are together and there is no chance of shooting more than the group's tags.

THAT being said I don't participate in or condone any illegal activity. You probably shouldn't either.

the thing is that ethics ,rules and code of conduct are related

as defined by the collins dictionary

Ethics pl n
1. a (http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=0&text=a) code (http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=0&text=code) of (http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=0&text=of) behaviour (http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=0&text=behaviour), esp (http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=0&text=esp). of (http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=0&text=of) a (http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=0&text=a) particular (http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=0&text=particular) group (http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=0&text=group), profession (http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=0&text=profession), or (http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=0&text=or) individual (http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=0&text=individual), business (http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=0&text=business) ethics (http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=0&text=ethics),



Code
2. a (http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=0&text=a) set (http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=0&text=set) of (http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=0&text=of) principles (http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=0&text=principles) or (http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=0&text=or) rules (http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=0&text=rules), a (http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=0&text=a) code (http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=0&text=code) of (http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=0&text=of) practice (http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=0&text=practice),

[anethema]

True I'm just saying if two guys go out with a moose tag together say, and it turned out the wrong one pushed and the other pulled the trigger..one moose is one moose seems ok for conservation to me. Since it is not legal though I wouldn't personally do it.

EDIT: To put it this way, dropping as many moose as you want, tags or not, is what I'd call "Malum in se" vs two guys going to hunt moose while only one has a tag, and the non tag holder pulls the trigger. This would be "malum prohibitum". For those of you that follow law stuff haha.

One is wrong because its wrong and everyone knows its wrong...it is wrong in itself. The other is wrong only because the rules say it is wrong.

[Jelvis]

If you both have valid tags for the species your looking to shoot and you both layed prone and on 3 2 1 BANG! It drops and is dead, who tagz it?
JP .. We need Solomon or Einstein?
.. Asking if computers can think is like asking if submarines can swim .. lol ..
I know you liked that one.

[Barracuda]

True I'm just saying if two guys go out with a moose tag together say, and it turned out the wrong one pushed and the other pulled the trigger..one moose is one moose seems ok for conservation to me. Since it is not legal though I wouldn't personally do it.

EDIT: To put it this way, dropping as many moose as you want, tags or not, is what I'd call "Malum in se" vs two guys going to hunt moose while only one has a tag, and the non tag holder pulls the trigger. This would be "malum prohibitum". For those of you that follow law stuff haha.

One is wrong because its wrong and everyone knows its wrong...it is wrong in itself. The other is wrong only because the rules say it is wrong.

The fact that you know its illegal and you act upon it and the fact that society would view the actions of useing another persons elgiibility and knowingly shoots an animal on another persons tag would be Malum In se .

Just because a criminal does not see a problem with what they are doing it does not mean it isnt a problem and those types of people generally like to surround themselves with others that have the same view even if society does not.



we have legal group hunts or combined hunts designed so people can havest as a group so this obviously has been addressed and the regs are set for a reason.



you know the rules before you hunt and it really is that simple and most people would never even think of hunting without a lisence or without an leh authorization.



Useing someone else to fill a tag is a plain and simple easy to see no no that for some reason some people dont think applies to them.

[Gun Dog]

As a group we all share the harvest which is illegal too (it's hard to say; we split the meat after it's been processed and "no longer resembles the original wildlife"). We also share the cost and cooking, gutting, skinning, transporting and chopping firewood. The fact that the law treats every hunter as an individual in isolation is a flaw in the law. As least shared moose hunts are a start.

The reality is that you break the law every day. Every person needs their own moral code which usually revolves around how you treat other people, not how many laws you okay.

[Barracuda]

picture this

Billy Bob goes on a sheep hunt in the broke back mountains with BillyRay:mrgreen:

Billy Bob has bad eyes so unless the sheep is within 100 yds he cant hit it.:???:

BillyRay is eagle eyed and can circumsize a gnat from from a thousand yds:wink:

Billy ray sees a fantastic full curl 10 year old ram 500yds away that he could shoot easily but it is BillyBob that has the only tag

Billy Bob tells Billy Ray to take the shot and he will cut his tag because the important thing is that they get the ram.

is this legal? ethical? sportsmanlike? or does it really matter who makes the shot? :confused:

pretty safe to say that their actions would be condemned by the average hunter

[Barracuda]

As a group we all share the harvest which is illegal too (it's hard to say; we split the meat after it's been processed and "no longer resembles the original wildlife"). We also share the cost and cooking, gutting, skinning, transporting and chopping firewood. The fact that the law treats every hunter as an individual in isolation is a flaw in the law. As least shared moose hunts are a start.

The reality is that you break the law every day. Every person needs their own moral code which usually revolves around how you treat other people, not how many laws you okay.

where do you find that you cant share or do as you please with the game meat after it is processed ,meat, cutter cold storage residence .

[The Silent Stalker]

I make it clear to every one I hunt with, you shoot something and expect me to cut my tag, I'm leaving you right there on the road and calling the CO's myself. I don't wait all year and spend my time and money for someone else to shoot my tag. I'll shoot it if I see it. That being said, I will have a friend back me up if possible, you never know when you may need a 2nd shot faster than you can get it off. I have never had to have anyone do it, but if I did I would cut my tag, share the moment and then back my buddy up for the rest of the hunt. That's just my 2 cents.

[fireguy]

there is one scenario where it is perfectly legal to shoot an animal on someone elses tag.


A Junior Hunting Licence can only be
issued to a parent or guardian on behalf
of his/her child or ward who is 10 years of
age or older and under the age of 14. The
junior hunter need not have completed
a hunter training program but must be
accompanied and under the close personal
supervision of an adult who carries the
proper licences. Wildlife taken by the junior
under this licence is included in the bag
limit of the accompanying licensed adult.
No species licences may be purchased
with the junior licence. However, during
a hunting season, a licensed junior hunter
may accompany and hunt with an adult
holding a valid Limited Entry Hunting
authorization and a valid species licenc

[russm86]

Barracuda, I think they may be over thinking or interpretting the regs differently. Like Under licence cancellation it says one can not be in possession without a cancelled tag and one could think techinically you are in possesion of the meat and if you are not the shooter you wouldnt have the cancelled tag so could be in illegal posession of the meat... Also states in the "It is Unlawful section" to #5 "traffic in wildlife meat" as well as #6 traffic in dead wildlife or parts of wildlif... depending on ones knowledge or definition of trafficing could be construed this way too... but i guess they should make sure to conintue reading the rest of number 6 then, lol. Also, some may find the whole possession and transportation section a little convoluted but really I'm not sure. As I have mentioned before, I know COs, judges, and lawyers that have troubles reading and interpretting some parts of the regs so how can they expect the average citizen to completely 100% understand every tiny detail of the regs? I know we all try our hardest but people do make mistakes...

[tonoffun80]

Trafficing in most cases meens you profited form the meat. As long you gave it to them there should be no problems

[Barracuda]

Granted some of the rules can be a bit difficult for some but they really are not as bad as some pretend and the average person should be able to grasp most of it if they actually took the time to do so.

People feign ignorance all the time so they can do what they want to even if they really know it is wrong.



traffic in the act is as follows "traffic" means to buy, sell, trade or distribute for gain or consideration or to offer to do so

here is the wildlife act http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96488_01

[russm86]

Yea, I agree. I think the only argument someone could make if they wanted to be a real pain is... that it doesnt descriminate what is being traded or gained... One could techinically see the help or assistance given either financially or physically when hunting together with a partner as a type of "trade" in turn for the "wildlife meat". Again someone would have to be pretty anal I think to try and make that association or distinction, but you never know. lol. I think it's one of those things that you could "What if?" to death...

[Banjo]

I make it clear to every one I hunt with, you shoot something and expect me to cut my tag, I'm leaving you right there on the road and calling the CO's myself. I don't wait all year and spend my time and money for someone else to shoot my tag. I'll shoot it if I see it. That being said, I will have a friend back me up if possible, you never know when you may need a 2nd shot faster than you can get it off. I have never had to have anyone do it, but if I did I would cut my tag, share the moment and then back my buddy up for the rest of the hunt. That's just my 2 cents.

Well said!

[bcmulie]

I do the same thing as The Silent Stalker.

If you shoot an animal and someone else tags it, you are both breaking the law. If someone else shoots an animal and you tag it, you are both breaking the law. There is no grey area.

As for people who get their non-hunting spouses to put in for LEH draws and then shoot animals on any tags their spouse draws, not only are you breaking the law, you are also taking tags away from ethical, law-abiding hunters. Shame on you!

bcmulie

[buzz720]

What about where 2 guys have a tag for the same animal and the first guy wounds the animal and the second guy is a back-up shot and he kills the animal, whose tag do you cut?

[tundra]

The person that kills the animal has to tag it. If you give meat away you are supposed to provide a letter to that person that has the licence #, tag # and the person who shot the animal. A CO does not have to witness someone shooting the animal and another tagging it, It just has to be witnessed and reported by someone Observe, Record and Report just ask the guy that was charged two years ago when I witnessed such an offence and reported it. There is not enough CO's in B.C so if more ethical hunters reported such infractions there would be less idiots out there.