Ontario hunting rule question

Doug

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Super GunNutz
Rating - 100%
937   0   0
Location
Kingston Ont
A very long time ago when I took my hunter safety course, the law in Ontario provided that you could not discharge a firearm within 200 metres of an occupied building (house etc). I have searched the current regulations and cannot find what the rule is today. I BELIEVE that it is still 200 metres, and I BELIEVE it was a provincial statute, not a federal law.

Any Ontario hunter safety instructors, or new hunters that just had their hunter safety course, know the answer? This is highly important in view of a nasty incident that happened on Monday that I wish never to repeat......

Doug
 
Doug said:
A very long time ago when I took my hunter safety course, the law in Ontario provided that you could not discharge a firearm within 200 metres of an occupied building (house etc). I have searched the current regulations and cannot find what the rule is today. I BELIEVE that it is still 200 metres, and I BELIEVE it was a provincial statute, not a federal law.

Any Ontario hunter safety instructors, or new hunters that just had their hunter safety course, know the answer? This is highly important in view of a nasty incident that happened on Monday that I wish never to repeat......

Doug

where ever i hunt i always check out the by-law of that town they will have that in there by-laws along with other info on discharging a firearm
 
I searched all my instructors material and I cannot find that one Doug... I will find out for you as soon as the office opens today though.
What kind of accident????
 
Hi Doug

I just finished my course a few months ago. The Canadian Firearms safety guide says

- NEVER SHOOT A TARGET NEAR A BUILDING!

Take care my friend and be safe

Mommabear
It didn't mention how many metres away...
 
It is not a target I want to shoot, it is a deer!

No accident, BR, just a nasty incident, where son Johnny shot a nice buck about five minutes before last light on Monday and a neighbour woman came out of her house and started screaming profanities at the top of her lungs - and she continued for FIFTEEN MINUTES.........

When the good ole boys cars started showing up in her driveway pointing their headlights at us (about 400 metres away), I decided to avoid a direct confrontation and we left the blood trail and went away, chased by some dickweed up the highway at high speed, etc etc etc. And when we got back (after I contacted the police etc), the rain had obliterated the blood trail........ At the time there was not a lot of blood and it appeared to me that the wound to the deer was superficial, but I wanted to follow the trail AT THE TIME until I either lost it or found the deer.

Johnny and I were 100% legal, written permission on private property and all that, but none of us needs a confrontation with angry and possibly psychotic nutbars, and I do not regret my decision to leave and to contact the police.

But before I go back in there I want to be 100% sure that the legal distance between me and that psycho's house is adequate under the law.

Doug
 
^JB is correct. We have seen recent bylaw attempts to severly restrict discharge NE of Toronto.

Here is what the Regs say (page 21)

Some townships/municipalities have by-laws restricting the
discharge of firearms. Check with the local municipal office
for details.
 
I think that most municipality discharge of firearms bylaws tend to prohibit or severely circumscribe discharge of firearms. I am not interested in bylaws, I want to know what the Ontario LAW states, if anything. The police and COs are not going to enforce any rinkydink municipal bylaws...........

no offence........

Doug
 
I think you should have called the CO's in Doug... interfering with a hunter is a criminal offence. I can't think of one law that you were breaking... but the phsyco neighbour and her redneck friends definitely broke several.
 
Non taken. Contact the MNR or Police, they should know. Let us know what you find out.

The Municipal Act:
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/01m25_e.htm
119. A local municipality may, for the purpose of public safety, prohibit or regulate the discharge of guns or other firearms, air-guns, spring-guns, cross-bows, long-bows or any other weapon. 2001, c. 25, s. 119.

From the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/97f41_e.htm
16. (1) A person who is in possession of a firearm for the purpose of hunting or trapping shall not discharge or handle the firearm, or cause it to be discharged or handled, without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for people or property.

Here is a quote from the Hunter Education Program website:
http://www.ohep.net/Info.cfm?ID=3
Remember: Hunting carelessly is an offence. Hunters who discharge firearms without due care and attention or consideration for persons and property, are liable to a fine of up to $25,000 or imprisonment - or both. Depending on the circumstances, a person may also be subject to charges under the Criminal Code.

Some townships/municipalities have by-laws restricting the discharge of firearms. Check with the local municipal office for details.
 
The police shift commander with whom I spoke at length was sympathetic and would have proceeded with charges against the dickweed who tailgated me at high speed, had I so desired. I am also aware that it is an offence to interfere with a legal hunting activity, but frankly I saw nothing to be gained at the time by trying to get a CO to attend, and all that would follow. In my view, the best course of action was to avoid confrontation (remember I am the guy with GUNS IN MY TRUCK, HORRORS!!!!), let the dust settle, consult the local police force and get on with things. You roll the dice when you invite a confrontation, and you, the law-abiding citizen, can quickly find yourself wondering WTF is going on - like that groundhog hunter near Barrie that the OPP strip-searched etc etc.

Anyways, this was not going to be a rant against a mentally unstable woman or a Monday Morning Quarterback session, just a request for information. Looks like the specific distance might have been removed from the Ontario regulations. I am going to try to contact a CO for their take on it......

Doug
 
Well, I defy you to contact a CO in this province......

Anyways I spoke with somebody at head office, wherever that is, probably a call centre in Calcutta or someplace. It appears that the "minimum distance" regulation has been removed and all that is left is the "responsible use" provision quoted by Fall Guy...........

So as long as you are acting responsibly, you are good to go. Of course, that leaves room for interpretation, and if you meet an ugly-tempered CO, well then your opions may vary, and you may find yourself in court. There was nothing ambiguous about 200 metres...........

Doug out.
 
i would defintly have your Local LEO's go pay a visit to your neighbors and inform them that interfering with a lawful hunt is a criminal offence
 
Call centre is in Sault Ste. Marie if you called the 1 -877 TIPS MNR line. There is no provision for distance in the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (other than dumps and bears), and the only legislation that could deal with it is a municple by law as previously stated.
 
In the defense of the CO's. There is a lack of funding to the front line staff. Here are a few stats that came out of the Ontario Conservation Officers Association meeting in Aug 06.

1992-- 257 CO's
2006-- 199 CO's

During the Mike Harris era, each CO was allotted aprox $300/week for expenses (ie. fuel for vehicles)

Currently aprox $100/Week per CO (don't forget to factor in, fuel cost increases).
 
I wasn't looking to beat up on COs either...........we do not have enough game wardens in this province, and McGuilty has cut the MNR budget to just about nothing. I am aware that many (or most?) COs hardly have enough gas to run patrols...........

But I did have a nasty run-in with an over-zealous CO a number of years ago, and that is always in my mind when I am talking about "interpretations." That guy needed to read up on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms........

Anyways, thanks for the advice, and for what it's worth I am just going to avoid hunting anywhere near the psychotic woman's house. If I go another couple hundred metres into the woods I am back two valleys from the front field she lives across from.........

Doug
 
Doug:

If you own the land where you hunt, or have explicit permission from the landowner, you might take the legal defence of public notification in the newspaper. By announcing the land location, the type of activity and the fact the discharge of firearms by a person registered with so-and-so lawyer is approved, you can protect yourself. Like notifying for debts on an estate, printed notices are one of the few legal announcements that the courts understand. You don't have to publish your name, just that a letter identifying yourself is deposited with the named lawyer. If they really need to know who you are, they can ask the lawyer (for a fee to cover your filing costs, he he he).
 
maple_leaf_eh said:
Doug:

If you own the land where you hunt, or have explicit permission from the landowner, you might take the legal defence of public notification in the newspaper. By announcing the land location, the type of activity and the fact the discharge of firearms by a person registered with so-and-so lawyer is approved, you can protect yourself. Like notifying for debts on an estate, printed notices are one of the few legal announcements that the courts understand. You don't have to publish your name, just that a letter identifying yourself is deposited with the named lawyer. If they really need to know who you are, they can ask the lawyer (for a fee to cover your filing costs, he he he).

That has to be among the dumber ideas I've read yet on this board. Why not take out an ad that says "Anti-hunters looking to stage a protest can come to the address listed below."

And on land that I own? Please. Rethink your suggestion.:rolleyes:
 
Hmmmm...

what Claybuster said X 2..........

I do not need to defend myself against anything. I am engaged in a 100% lawful activity that no person can legally interfere with. And some newpaper announcement is not going to be of any help whatsoever when a mentally deranged person decides that they don't like something I am doing, whether legal or not.

Anyways, the solution I have chosen is to avoid confrontation, and it is easy and painless to do so. None of us helps our cause by being arseholes, even if we are right...........

Doug
 
Doug and Claybuster:

I made the suggestion as fair warning. In a litiginous society and one where precedent has some weight in land use, staking the high ground is better than losing a bylaw ambush. With my suggestion a trespasser, interfering neighbour or someone trying to spoil your hunting can't say they never were warned. The military makes these announcements around their bases routinely. It won't bring back that lost deer, but it is a certain measure of shark repellant.

I sincerely doubt a crackhead burgler reads the classified ads and will put two and two together about the presence of firearms at lot, concession, township, county whatever. If the antis show up, it proves my point that you do have a right to do whatever you want.
 
Back
Top Bottom