Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave
So, the ABA resolution passed then?
|
There was no ABA resolution, they skipped that part of the process and the execs went right to the proposal presented to AGMAG (May 2013).
As the ABA did not debate their official position on Spears/Atlatls at the recent general meeting, the ABA execs will likely continue to lobby for these tools to be made illegal. This is why I keep asking for the ABA exec. to state their current position on Spears/Atlatls. I wonder why they won't publically state whether or not they will continue to oppose spears/atlatls for hunting big game?
Here is where is it getting even more complicated now, and why we must contact all the representatives to state your opinion.
It appears that the ABA Proposal to Ban Spears/Atlatls has been absorbed by a new proposal Discussion by F&W to redefine Legal Weapons for hunting (Jan 2014 AGMAG).
The new Issue for Discussion proposal by F&W is to completely rewrite the Legal Weapon definition within the Wildlife Act to specifically state which weapons are legal for hunting. Anything not on the list will be illegal. The proposed list will include Archery, Crossbows, and firearms (centre fire, shotgun and muzzleloaders). As proposed, Spears and Atlatls will be illegal by omission. In addition, practices such as hunting grouse with a slingshot or sub 500 fps pellet guns will also become illegal. Finishing off that deer with a knife will be illegal unless an exemption is somehow defined.
Take note of part 3 of the Discussion proposal. Despite what F&W are saying, no other AGMAG groups supported the ABA Proposal, AFGA and SCI stated that they opposed it. AFGA and SCI stated at the Jan 2014 AGMAG meeing that they do not see a need nor want to open a discussion on redefining legal weapons.
Jan 2014 AGMAG Minutes
New issues to initiate for consultation
2. Limit weapons allowed to hunt big game
• Rather than list prohibited weapons, list those that are permitted.
• Members don’t want change… there is no issue – AFGA
• Our members also don’t want definition – SCI
• This regulation change can help defend against the unknown, e.g. drones, remote hunting.. etc. etc. – ESRD
How will defining weapons regulate drones? Drones would have to be regulated in another fashion as they are not "Weapons".
The "Unknown". This has been exemplified with the F&W and ABA verbalized concern of "Pursuit Hunting". Cause there is such a big problem with hunters running down elk on foot.
And again, defining weapons will not regulate "pursuit hunting", this would have to be done in another way within the Wildlife Act. How? Don't ask me. I guess there will be a new regulation that you cannot follow, "pursue" wildlife when hunting.
Maybe they will simply make the bolded part of (o) (ii) of the wildlife act a criminal offense?
(o) “hunt” means, subject to subsection (6), with reference to a subject animal,
(i) shoot at, harass or worry,
(ii) chase, pursue, follow after or on the trail of, search for, flush, stalk or lie in wait for,
(iii) capture or wilfully injure or kill,
(iv) attempt to capture, injure or kill, or
(v) assist another person to hunt in a manner specified in subclause (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) while that other person is so hunting;
The can of worms is now wide open.
F&W Issue for Discussion - Limit the types of weapons allowed during an Open Hunting Season. (Jan 2014 AGMAG)
