Hunting without PAL

[KodiakHntr]

LOL

Post up the law that says direct and immediate when driver training. You making up BS and claiming its law and supports your original BS is hilarious.

Go ahead and post up the case law that says direct and immediate mean as long as the person can hear you. You wont be able to as it does not exist.

Shawn

Ahhh, I see the issue here. It's reading comprehension. I find it ironic that you can see the flip side of your argument when it comes to the terms "direct and immediate supervision" when you are trying to make a point against it to follow your view, but you can't see that the same argument exists when it conflicts with your opinion.

And PLEASE, explain how I claimed anything was law. Show your work, it'll be funny.

 

[45ACPKING]

Lotta guys trying to bend the law to justify what they like to do.

Sorry but someone hearing you is not direct and immediate supervision no matter how much you want it to be and the law wont think so either. If you can not intervene you are not in direct and immediate supervision.

So under your "logic" if both guys have radios and can still see each other but are 500m apart that is direct and immediate supervision. Now you are 500m apart and CO comes cross buddy without a PAL how to do you think that is going to go?

LOL

But but that guy 500m over there is directly and immediately supervising me!

Shawn

no because the immediate supervision..... at least here in BC is defined.
no magnified vision other than perscription glasses obviously so you must be able to clearly see the individual and what they are doing
no amplified hearing..... meaning no radios... and if grandpa's got hearing aids..... ya better be extra close LOL

any reasonable adult should be able to understand that we are talking about being "feet" away..... not meters.
any reasonable adult should be able to understand that we aren't lending firearms to those not educated in safe firearms handling.... because we all know they had to take a firearms safety course to get thier access to a hunting license. A firearms safety course that (in BC anyways) nearly mirrors and repeats the same firearms safety course a fellow canadian takes to get thier PAL.

the answer to the OP's question , specifically as it pertains to Alberta.... should have been YES , plain and simple.

 

[Gatehouse]

If you say so.

Well, it's not just me saying so. It's also the FAQ you quoted.

 

[riversrest]

1 PAL, 3 hunters in a blind, 3 shotguns. All legal (federally)

^^^and... this!!!^^^

Reminds me of the Waterfowler's Heritage Days when us adults/mentors cannot hunt because the regs state:


"Mentors may not hunt or carry a firearm and may accompany no more than two young hunters."

My hunting partner and I took four kids out, so 4 guns, 2 pals.

RR

 

[shawn]

Ahhh, I see the issue here. It's reading comprehension. I find it ironic that you can see the flip side of your argument when it comes to the terms "direct and immediate supervision" when you are trying to make a point against it to follow your view, but you can't see that the same argument exists when it conflicts with your opinion.

And PLEASE, explain how I claimed anything was law. Show your work, it'll be funny.

LOL

Sure, I am not the one claiming that because you don't have rent a car with 2 steering wheels that that proves as long as the guy can hear you its direct and immediate while hunting

Shawn

 

[rhino519]

Read it again. You're confusing the two separate lists---the one listing "shotguns,bows,muzzle...." If you look at the larger list above that for WMU 46 open gun seasons,you'll see beside it that the condition portion is blank,therefore,you can use what you like.

yeah, i saw that, no restrictions, the simple closing and opening of the season was enough for me to lay off the bow, not that i would have used it in a gun season

 

[shawn]

no because the immediate supervision..... at least here in BC is defined.
no magnified vision other than perscription glasses obviously so you must be able to clearly see the individual and what they are doing
no amplified hearing..... meaning no radios... and if grandpa's got hearing aids..... ya better be extra close LOL

And?

Does not change the fact that any provincial regulations do not apply to federal laws. They both stand on their own.

any reasonable adult should be able to understand that we aren't lending firearms to those not educated in safe firearms handling.... because we all know they had to take a firearms safety course to get thier access to a hunting license. A firearms safety course that (in BC anyways) nearly mirrors and repeats the same firearms safety course a fellow canadian takes to get thier PAL.

the answer to the OP's question , specifically as it pertains to Alberta.... should have been YES , plain and simple.

I never said to the contrary

Shawn

 

[45ACPKING]

I hear what you are saying Shawn.

It's my understanding that the firearms act is also a guideline for the provinces , who are then allowed to tweak the act to thier individual provincial regulations.
Take Saskatchewan for example..... there is no requirement under saskatchewan law to have a PAL for the purpose of hunting. A saskatchewan CO can not lay a charge under the firearms act for hunting without a PAL.... unless something has changed since 2010. Now, an rcmp officer can lay those charges, sure but I'd love to see some case law from saskatchewan due to the provinces resistance to the federal firearms act in past practice.

I believe the BC hunting regulations do a good job of defining "accompany" and "direct supervision" and speaking only to hunting in my province.... I am confident that "my practices" are fully within the intention of the laws, both federal and provincial.

I would need to see case law on this subject to be able to discuss this topic further...... I'm not finding any

 

[Gatehouse]

Case law? Forget it. I doubt there is any or will be any.

Why?

Because RCMP aren’t out walking around in the bush checking PALs. The most likely time you will run into law enforcement is when you are driving down the road or in camp and there is no question of “direct supervision” as everyone is all together. And we can’t forget that this topic is only really an issue for the Internet lawyers on CGN. If it was a big issue for COs we would have heard about it years ago....

 

[Dukester]

I hear what you are saying Shawn.

I would need to see case law on this subject to be able to discuss this topic further...... I'm not finding any

You are not hearing Shawn one bit. Given your understanding of the law you might be one of the first cases !

Case law? Forget it. I doubt there is any or will be any.

Why?

Because RCMP aren’t out walking around in the bush checking PALs. The most likely time you will run into law enforcement is when you are driving down the road or in camp and there is no question of “direct supervision” as everyone is all together. And we can’t forget that this topic is only really an issue for the Internet lawyers on CGN. If it was a big issue for COs we would have heard about it years ago....

Case law might not come from routine enforcement, more likely something happens. A shooting accident, a poaching or trespassing situation, lost hunter, all the bad stuff that can happen, especially when someone really isn't under immediate and direct supervision. And if it never happens that will be a good thing.

 

[Papaclaude]

You are not hearing Shawn one bit. Given your understanding of the law you might be one of the first cases !



Case law might not come from routine enforcement, more likely something happens. A shooting accident, a poaching or trespassing situation, lost hunter, all the bad stuff that can happen, especially when someone really isn't under immediate and direct supervision. And if it never happens that will be a good thing.

You're most likely right. I really can't remember ever meeting a CO while I am actually hunting in the bush. I have often had them waiting at or near my vehicle, at a roadblock, or even at camp, but never walking in the bush.

Funny (well, not at all) how things have changed. When I was 11 or so, I'd come home from school through the front door, get out of my school clothes (yeah, we had those then) and into my after-school clothes, grab my Cooey 410, out the back door and into the bush. Not legal, but tolerated. When my son was growing up, when he was 12 or so, I'd let him take the same Cooey and take quick walks alone into side trails when we'd be out bird hunting together. Not legal, but tolerated. Now, if you let your daughter or son use your firearm when hunting, make sure you've dotted all the i's, or you could face criminal charges. I just hope most LEO's still use a bit of common sense. It's always been illegal, though not necessarily criminal, but enforcement knew such "crimes" didn't endanger anyone.

 

[memaquay]

Talked to a CO today about two guys hunting, both with licenses and only having one PAL. He said he never asked for PAL's, in normal situations, as that wasn't his jurisdiction. He was surprised when I told him that MNR call center had said one pal means only one gun with two guys hunting. However, he said if there was a situation, for instance, a violation or something, and the perp was nasty or abusive, that they would often then ask for the PAL, as they had to do full documentation.

So, no answers really, other than that if you aren't a dink to your local CO, he will probably not ask you for your PAL.