Did I just watch an illegal deer kill on todays episode of The Edge on Wild TV?

6MM

6MM

Member
Rating - 100%
53   0   0
Location
Saskatoon, SK
Just watched a hunt with Weber Outfitting on the tv show The Edge this morning in Goodsoil SK. The hunter is in a blind over bait hunting whitetail deer (with a firearm) and shows clips of him (at times) alternating between having a blaze orange hat and or vest on overtop of camo clothing. When the kill happens the hunter is in full camo, no blaze vest or hat.

Are there different laws that apply when shooting from a blind or did Wild TV just air a program showing an illegal kill?
 
There is no exception for hunting from a blind, the clothing regulations still apply. I am surprised that you could actually tolerate the hosts of the show long enough to watch that much of the show. As to them not obeying the regulations, I am not surprised in the least.
 
Last edited:
So then sounds like the hunter should face some charges. What about the outfitter, do/should they face any legal consequences as well?
 
if the blind is marked with blaze orange i though that you did not have to wear it your self. if you leave the blind then you must wear the blaze. also he may have taken it off for the pic,
 
No blaze was visible on the blind. They showed the blind being put up next to a wooden blind that would have been too small for a hunter and camera man. That blind was painted in drab colors with no blaze visible on it either.
 
The following is from the 2015 Saskatchewan Hunting Regulations. Although it does not differentiate between a hunter outside, and one in a blind, my interpretation would be that the hi-viz garments are only required if the hunter is outside the blind, but the CO might have other ideas. If you have questions, its best to have them satisfied by the folks who enforce the regulations.

Big Game
It is a violation to:
· hunt big game with a rifle, hunt in
a designated rifle-only season, or
accompany a rifle hunter without
wearing:
~ a vest (an outer garment that
covers the torso) of scarlet,
bright yellow, blaze orange or
white or any combination of
these colours. The vest may
include a small label or crest not
exceeding 100 centimetres² or
15 inches².
~ a high-visibility garment carrying
a Canadian Standards
Association (CSA) label stating
CAN/CSA Z96 -02, Z96-09 or
Z96-15. Both class 2 (vest) or
class 3 (coveralls) garments are
lawful hunting apparel.
~ headwear must be scarlet, bright
yellow or blaze orange (white is
not allowed). The headwear
may include a small label or
crest not exceeding
50 centimetres² or 7.8 inches²
 
doots said:
if the blind is marked with blaze orange i though that you did not have to wear it your self. if you leave the blind then you must wear the blaze. also he may have taken it off for the pic,
Click to expand...

Having blaze orange on a blind does not exempt you from the clothing regulations.
 
A couple of seasons ago I was stopped by a Conservation Officer while I was driving down a grid road. I had my blaze hat on but he told me that my jacket was not red enough to meet regs. He cut me a break as I had a spare blaze coat in my truck. So I figure that if I have to be wearing the blaze in my truck I should have it on all the time I am firearm hunting deer.
 
The color law for hunters clothing has been in effect for at least 70 years and is in the same stupid category as their no Sunday hunting law, which even pre dates the color law.
 
Woah, let's take it easy. Not wearing blaze orange doesn't make anything an "illegal kill", it just means at worst they didn't adhere to the blaze requirements. It's blowing it completely out of proportion to suggest that the killing itself wasn't legal, as in it violated one of the regulations surrounding licensing, species, season, bag limits, weapon allowed, etc etc.

Not all offences are of the same magnitude. I'll confess, I see not wearing blaze whilst completely concealed by a ground blind more as a boneheaded oops than anything to get worked up over. Blaze is hardly going to serve it's intended purpose in this case, and there's zero requirement to mark a stand with blaze is Sask. So really, what's the huge big hairy deal here?

It's not like the guy was being unethical, he just possibly made a mistake with regards as to when blaze is required. No need to clutch pearls over this one.
 
You do realize that editing allows for video to be shot out of sequence right? It is entirely possible that the hunt was conducted legally while wearing orange, and they filmed filler pieces after the hunt was over and he had changed clothes.

Of course as this is all edited footage it would not be admissible in court. The original uncut footage would be required and that itself would need to be verified as unedited to meet rules of evidence standards.
 
flashman said:
Woah, let's take it easy. Not wearing blaze orange doesn't make anything an "illegal kill", it just means at worst they didn't adhere to the blaze requirements. It's blowing it completely out of proportion to suggest that the killing itself wasn't legal, as in it violated one of the regulations surrounding licensing, species, season, bag limits, weapon allowed, etc etc.

Not all offences are of the same magnitude. I'll confess, I see not wearing blaze whilst completely concealed by a ground blind more as a boneheaded oops than anything to get worked up over. Blaze is hardly going to serve it's intended purpose in this case, and there's zero requirement to mark a stand with blaze is Sask. So really, what's the huge big hairy deal here?

It's not like the guy was being unethical, he just possibly made a mistake with regards as to when blaze is required. No need to clutch pearls over this one.
Click to expand...

If the hunter was not dressed according to the regulations when he actually made the kill, then the kill was in fact illegal. If the hunter was changing clothes during the hunt, but he actually had the required clothes on when he made the kill, then the kill was legal.
 
The 'kill shot' was probably recorded a dozen times and one of them used for production. The missing orange is from a day's worth of clips being edited together poorly
 
H4831 said:
The color law for hunters clothing has been in effect for at least 70 years and is in the same stupid category as their no Sunday hunting law, which even pre dates the color law.
Click to expand...

X2
I doubt these silly regulations have saved a single life over all that time, particularly since hi-viz color isn't worn by non-hunters.
 
flashman said:
Woah, let's take it easy. Not wearing blaze orange doesn't make anything an "illegal kill", it just means at worst they didn't adhere to the blaze requirements. It's blowing it completely out of proportion to suggest that the killing itself wasn't legal, as in it violated one of the regulations surrounding licensing, species, season, bag limits, weapon allowed, etc etc.

Not all offences are of the same magnitude. I'll confess, I see not wearing blaze whilst completely concealed by a ground blind more as a boneheaded oops than anything to get worked up over. Blaze is hardly going to serve it's intended purpose in this case, and there's zero requirement to mark a stand with blaze is Sask. So really, what's the huge big hairy deal here?

It's not like the guy was being unethical, he just possibly made a mistake with regards as to when blaze is required. No need to clutch pearls over this one.
Click to expand...


^^^ This. Not having your orange on is not the same thing as hunting out of season, without a licence, over bag limit. But by all means, call the authorities and rat them out. Seems to be the trendy thing to do these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom