You are wrong, and are just confusing what is a simple answer. In Ontario you can legally be in your stand before legal shooting light with an encased gun. We don't really need your deliberate obtuse answers confusing people, especially any new hunters that may read this thread.
Being in the stand before first light
- Thread starter John Y Cannuck
- Start date
- Status
You are wrong, and are just confusing what is a simple answer. In Ontario you can legally be in your stand before legal shooting light with an encased gun. We don't really need your deliberate obtuse answers confusing people, especially any new hunters that may read this thread.
I completely agree with you that the charge is unlikely to be brought. However, that doesn't mean that if you were charged, that it wouldn't stick. And your example acknowledges the grey area of interpretation. See R. v. Houle and Tarty, 2018 MBQB 128 (CanLII) for an example of interpretation.
Nearly every hunter I know in Ontario has had the pleasure of returning to their truck after legal shooting time only to find the CO waiting for them to ensure their guns are encased. The only ones charged are the ones without a case or gun sock. It could be a long hike out and be an hour after legal hunting time but it's still not going to lead to charges.
I believe this is the enforcement section for Ontario. Pretty explicit intent.
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997
S.O. 1997, CHAPTER 41
Night hunting
20 (1) A person shall not, during the period from half an hour after sunset to half an hour before sunrise,
(a) hunt wildlife;
(b) have a firearm in the person’s possession in an area usually inhabited by wildlife, unless the firearm is unloaded and encased; or
(c) shine a light for the purpose of hunting wildlife.
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997
S.O. 1997, CHAPTER 41
Night hunting
20 (1) A person shall not, during the period from half an hour after sunset to half an hour before sunrise,
(a) hunt wildlife;
(b) have a firearm in the person’s possession in an area usually inhabited by wildlife, unless the firearm is unloaded and encased; or
(c) shine a light for the purpose of hunting wildlife.
90% of my morning hunts I make sure to be set up before light, whether I'm hunting from a stand, blind or directly on the ground. I have shot mature deer at pretty much all time of day but still prefer to be settle in before first light.
I agree with you comment on full moon and deer moving later, there is an exception to that, when the rut is in full swing and there is a lot of competition between bucks (ie here in Sk) this rule goes out the window, as soon as the rut hits here in Sk, the bucks go bat shyte crazy, regardless of moon phase.
I agree with you comment on full moon and deer moving later, there is an exception to that, when the rut is in full swing and there is a lot of competition between bucks (ie here in Sk) this rule goes out the window, as soon as the rut hits here in Sk, the bucks go bat shyte crazy, regardless of moon phase.
Yes, and if you've been following along, you will note the difference between the black letter of the law (its technical interpretation) and how it is applied in the field by individual conservation officers. It is the latter that is subject to variability, but not the former. Thankfully.
I agree that getting to your stand as early as possible is a good way to start the hunt. But at 69yrs old I am not as nimble as I used to be and walking through fields, woods and streams in the dark with a flashlight doesn't work for me anymore. I do get in at first light and have had good success last 10 years, getting deer at all hours of daylight.
I understand the or.
The sections intent is to make it lawful to be in an area where games is present as long as your firearm is unloaded and encased, all hypothetical reaching aside.
This is not a strict liability offence and if you wanted to reach for (a) you would need to show intent.
It actually is a strict liability offence (though I acknowledge some decisions say otherwise, depending on the province). Most regulatory offences of this kind are. And you don't need a firearm as described in part (b) to make out the offence, nor the light described in part (c). You can make it out under part (a).
Last edited:
- Location
- The Conservative part of Ontario
CV32 if you've been following along, by now you'd have figured out you are completely wrong.
Why do you think you hear duck hunters guns at first light? how did they get to their blinds so fast? Teleportation?
Same for deer hunting, hear shots a minute into legal? How'd that happen?
Easy, it's legal to carry a firearm to your blind/stand in the dark, midnight if you like, as long as it's unloaded and encased in Ontario. PERIOD!
Why do you think you hear duck hunters guns at first light? how did they get to their blinds so fast? Teleportation?
Same for deer hunting, hear shots a minute into legal? How'd that happen?
Easy, it's legal to carry a firearm to your blind/stand in the dark, midnight if you like, as long as it's unloaded and encased in Ontario. PERIOD!
Nope. And if you want to convince me, go ahead and make the legal argument with reference to the appropriate sections of the regulations. Anecdotes are all well and good, but they do not define the law.
This is incorrect. Its a sad commentary that so many people think that because you've never been charged, or because a CO doesn't apply the strict letter of the law, that the law doesn't exist.
Are you under the same delusion when it comes to speeding in your automobile? Do you think because you've never received a ticket for 110 kph in a 100 kph zone that it must therefore be "legal" to drive at 110 kph?
You are not wrong, strictly speaking, but what you doggedly refuse to acknowledge is the intent of the legislation. I have studied and trained and worked for a time in field enforcement and for 32 years in the general field. One of the first things you receive in training is, in "Interpretation and Intent" (of the law, not the individual)... your application of the semantics here, to pre/post legal light access is far over-reaching the "intent." Hence, you are hearing plenty of examples why these laws will not be applied in the manner in which you are suggesting that they might be.
You're ahead of most here by at least acknowledging that's how the legislation reads. Its intent, however, is only relevant to the extent and manner in which the conservation officers enforce the offence in the field. This was already acknowledged earlier in the thread, so you're quite wrong in saying that I refuse to say so. Most folks are ignoring this and instead are hung up on making the argument that because the offence has never been applied that way, to their knowledge, it cannot possibly be interpreted that way. And this argument is patently wrong.
It would be a sad commentary if a CO misread the law so badly that he charged someone sitting in their blind with an unloaded and encased firearm waiting for legal light. It wouldn't be an argument on the internet, it would be his credibility as an officer that would be destroyed.
The speeding comparison is not even close to being valid.
I don't necessarily disagree that enforcement would be harsh, but again (for the umpteenth time), that doesn't change the reading of the regulation. It is what it is. Take the fact that it isn't enforced that way as a blessing, because I've seen some pretty sad commentaries in other cases.
Its perfectly valid.
- Status
