Your interpretation of the rule

So where does it say that it does not apply to processed meat?

[Sheepshot]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

So where does it say that it does not apply to processed meat?

Show me were it says it does?

Originally Posted by Sheepshot

Show me were it says it does?

LMAO...that's what I thought. Someone in this thread already commented on the validity of giving opinions about law.......thanks!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by greylynx

Lets make things a little more interesting.

What if you found big white cysts on the liver and spleen, and little wiggly things at the lower part of the intestine near the anus.

Would you consider this animal to be worthy of human consumption, or dog meat?

Thats what google is for, I shot an old moose that had quite a few tapeworm cysts in its lower legs and a few throughout most of the meat in lower concentrations. I Googled it and found out that the cysts were only a threat to my dog so I ate the tough old bugger. If a fellow cant handle it he should think twice about pulling the trigger and pick up his meat at the supermarket. If it was a paresite that could survive in humans that would be a completely different story though.

Every year last years meat gets made into sausage and peperoni, what I dont eat gets given away to friends and family, no freezer burned meat goes in the garbage here.

[Nait Hadya]

didn't we deal with this last year....

your discussing law not rule....

'Property in dead wildlife

8(1) After the death in Alberta of wildlife belonging to the Crown, the property in it remains in the Crown unless the Minister transfers it to another person under section 9 or unless

(a) it has been lawfully hunted,"

therefore what a hunter does with it is none of your business so long as it does not violate....

Prohibition against spoilage, etc., of skin and edible flesh

41(1) A person who has killed or is in possession of a game bird or big game animal, other than a mountain lion or bear, shall not

(a) abandon any of its flesh that is fit for human consumption,

(b) destroy any such flesh, or

(c) allow any such flesh to become unfit for human consumption.

therefore, feeding it to a parrot is not abandoning it, nor destroying it.

edible....

would you buy steaks from the supermarket with tape worm cysts visible on the steaks? would health canada allow the sale of meat with tape worms in it? they also post a guide on the shelf/freezer life of frozen food. if you want to live like those from 100 years ago,you'll llikely have a similar life span. if anyone judges you on your decisions on what goes to your plate.... serve them a dish of tape worm cysts, cooked of course. Bon appétit....

[wwbirds]

Can we force our ethics on someone else I doubt it but I consider feeding pheasants to dogs wasting and what is it teaching the dog if it is a hunting dog (birddog).
It has already been brought up that if it wouldn't stand the test of people especially non hunters hearing about this practice then it is not good for our sport.
How about the cost of this dog food? Anyone want to guess what it takes to put a rooster into the wild for you to hunt in dollars. Cost to raise in controlled circumstance (heat shelter food) to 16 weeks of age (fullly feathered and decent muscles(meat and for flying) $14.20
Add .50 per month for feed so a prime 2 year old bird is worth ? $26.-27. each. Now wild mortality is at least 4 times what I experience on captive birds so a wild one that survives to 2 is worth $100.+
What about the economic cost of that bird not being available to another hunter so he and his crew stay home in 2010 discouraged. Spin off losses in no licence sales, no hotel rentals, gas, shells etc. so the province is unwillling to spend money on releasing birds as it appears interest is waning and tourism is down.
Feeding a dog a pheasant could be the equivalent of feeding a $200. + bird in place of .50 cents of kibble.
Please tell me this is not really happening.
Rob

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Nait Hadya

didn't we deal with this last year....

your discussing law not rule....

'Property in dead wildlife

8(1) After the death in Alberta of wildlife belonging to the Crown, the property in it remains in the Crown unless the Minister transfers it to another person under section 9 or unless

(a) it has been lawfully hunted,"

therefore what a hunter does with it is none of your business so long as it does not violate....

Prohibition against spoilage, etc., of skin and edible flesh

41(1) A person who has killed or is in possession of a game bird or big game animal, other than a mountain lion or bear, shall not

(a) abandon any of its flesh that is fit for human consumption,

(b) destroy any such flesh, or

(c) allow any such flesh to become unfit for human consumption.

therefore, feeding it to a parrot is not abandoning it, nor destroying it.

edible....

would you buy steaks from the supermarket with tape worm cysts visible on the steaks? would health canada allow the sale of meat with tape worms in it? they also post a guide on the shelf/freezer life of frozen food. if you want to live like those from 100 years ago,you'll llikely have a similar life span. if anyone judges you on your decisions on what goes to your plate.... serve them a dish of tape worm cysts, cooked of course. Bon appétit....

I'll have a little HP sauce with my tape worm cycsts Lucy.

[Nait Hadya]

Originally Posted by Scotty P.

Now in my mind that is exactly what this rule means but I'm curious as to:

NO,that is where the problem is, "your mind". that is not what the law,"rule" states. curious? well that's another subject. LMA OFF

[thebuckshow]

Well, here's my take on this...

Going by the what the law states, and how I read it, feeding wild game to your dog is not illegal. I give my dog a couple hearts and livers from a few birds I kill, but I would never give him a whole bird. Be it mallard, pheasant, hun, grouse, because I would rather eat it, and give him a little taste! In my opinion and how I read the regulations there, it's not illegal.

However, on the other hand, if someone told me they were feeding whole pheasants (argueably the most succulant, delicious, juicy, tasty game bird ever created) I would slap him up side the head for committing such a hanous act! Then I would offer to eat his birds for him.

So by the law "Not Guilty"
By my personal opinion on the matter "Guilty"

[winged1]

The wildlife Act is an act specifically directed towards the resources of the crown, namely, wildlife. The act is applicable up until the point that the crown relinquishes ownership of the resource.

41(1) A person who has killed or is in possession of a game bird or big game animal, other than a mountain lion or bear, shall not
(a) abandon any of its flesh that is fit for human consumption,
(b) destroy any such flesh, or
(c) allow any such flesh to become unfit for human consumption.

The above section details the obligations of hunter who has legal game in thier possession, up until;

remove the distinctive evidence of sex and species from the carcass of any big game until the carcass is delivered to
the usual residence of the person who killed it, and the animal is butchered, cut and packaged for consumption,

At this point, a hunter in legal standing has fullfilled his/her obligations under the Wildlife Act, the Crown relinquishes ownership, and the mule deer is now no different than the pork or beef.

If a hunter has in thier possession an illegally harvested animal, it remains property of the crown regardless of it's disposition.

[elkhunter11]

41(1) A person who has killed or is in possession of a game bird or big game animal, other than a mountain lion or bear, shall not

(a) abandon any of its flesh that is fit for human consumption,

(b) destroy any such flesh, or

(c) allow any such flesh to become unfit for human consumption.

therefore, feeding it to a parrot is not abandoning it, nor destroying it.

edible....

Is that meat still fit for human consumption after being fed to a parrot.Perhaps for you,but I wouldn't eat it after the parrot has recycled it.

At this point, a hunter in legal standing has fullfilled his/her obligations under the Wildlife Act, the Crown relinquishes ownership, and the mule deer is now no different than the pork or beef.

It is legal to sell pork or beef,but it isn't legal to sell mule deer meat that was taken under the authority of a sport hunting license,so no,it is different,even after being processed.

[whitetail Junkie]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Is that meat still fit for human consumption after being fed to a parrot.Perhaps for you,but I wouldn't eat it after the parrot has recycled it.



It is legal to sell pork or beef,but it isn't legal to sell mule deer meat that was taken under the authority of a sport hunting license,so no,it is different,even after being processed.

I see you have been shineing up that Badge early Today

All in good fun Elk11,all in good fun!

[leo]

Feeding scraps and ofal to your dogs,I'm all for it. Feeding whole animals to your pets is an unethical use of your hunting privelidges in my opinion. I am of the opinion that if you can't afford to feed and keep animals, you shouldn't have them.

Leo

[winged1]

It is legal to sell pork or beef,but it isn't legal to sell mule deer meat that was taken under the authority of a sport hunting license,so no,it is different,even after being processed.

Any violation of the Act, prevents transfer of ownership. The Act is clear that hunting by permit is not for commerce. You've followed a different path than the usual residence of the person who killed it, so I'm not sure what your getting at. If you sold it, you wouldn't have to deal with the concept of feeding it to your dog, so other than a valid argumentive point, it's pointless to the topic at hand.

Personally, I eat what I kill, and expect others to do the same. I would doubt however that the freezer burnt meat argument thrown out earlier would bring about charges under the wildlife act.

Obviously, you or I aren't going to make the correct legal interpretation, until it is tested and ruled on in a court of law. So the answer in this quest, is referring to court rulings.

[Scotty P.]

Thank you to everyone who posted their opinion. It seems that my question is more about ethics than the law. Technically the heart and liver from most game animals are fit for human consumption (depending one who you ask) but I know not everyone takes them. Wouldn't that be breaking this law? I guess I'm staring to split hairs here but I'm still wondering how Fish and Wildlife officers interpret this law. I suppose I'll just have to phone and find out. Once again thank you to everyone for your input and Merry Christmas!

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by Scotty P.

Thank you to everyone who posted their opinion. It seems that my question is more about ethics than the law. Technically the heart and liver from most game animals are fit for human consumption (depending one who you ask) but I know not everyone takes them. Wouldn't that be breaking this law? I guess I'm staring to split hairs here but I'm still wondering how Fish and Wildlife officers interpret this law. I suppose I'll just have to phone and find out. Once again thank you to everyone for your input and Merry Christmas!

Intent, intent, intent.

For the most part most F&W Officers base their persuing of charges based a lot on what they perceive the intent of the individual in question was.

If someone left the organ meat, and they persued charges to only later find out the person suffered from gout (docters document) it would go no where.

Now if someone took an animal and only cut off the head gear, and left the remainder to the coyotes, well I'd say they'd go pretty hard on them.

The investigation, the responses from questions and the attitude of those involved are all part of determining the intent.

[winged1]

After reviewing a few court documents, it was reiterated in several, that the portion of edible meat included; legs, back, neck, ribs.

[thumper]

'Flesh', by definition, does not include organs.

Unfortunately, in Alberta, determining what is 'edible flesh' is up to the CO. So unless you scrape every bit of edible flesh from between the tendons on the lower legs - you MAY be breaking the law!

It's not been my experience that all COs determine your 'intent' before placing charges.

The BC regs are much clearer -
"Edible portions ... means the edible portions of the four quarters and the loins of of the animal, and in respect to game birds, means the edible portions of both breasts of the bird"

You are free to leave the rest in the field.

[Okotokian]

So much of the Wildlife Act seems to be open to interpretation or discretion... you know what would be great to get our hands on? Internal guidelines or training materials for F&W and Conservation officers. There must be some, somewhere... something that guides them as to when to charge, when to warn, and when to ignore. I can't imagine it's just luck that prevents a CO from charging you with wasting edible flesh because he finds a half ounce on the skull of an animal.

[elkhunter11]

Any violation of the Act, prevents transfer of ownership. The Act is clear that hunting by permit is not for commerce. You've followed a different path than the usual residence of the person who killed it, so I'm not sure what your getting at.

Suppose I killed an animal with the intention of eating it,tagged it,cleaned it,then took it home to my residence after it was processed.At that point,it was killed for a legal reason,and it has since been processed,so according to you,I have fullfilled my legal obligations as stated below:

The above section details the obligations of hunter who has legal game in thier possession, up until;

remove the distinctive evidence of sex and species from the carcass of any big game until the carcass is delivered to
the usual residence of the person who killed it, and the animal is butchered, cut and packaged for consumption,

At this point, a hunter in legal standing has fullfilled his/her obligations under the Wildlife Act, the Crown relinquishes ownership, and the mule deer is now no different than the pork or beef.

According to the law,I can give it away,but I can't sell it,therefore it does not become the same as beef or pork, as soon as it is processed,as was earlier claimed.

I see you have been shineing up that Badge early Today

If I had one,I would shine it up good,then send it to Sheephunter for Christmas,seeing how it appears to be such a big deal to him.

[winged1]

According to the law,I can give it away,but I can't sell it

So, if I give it away, can I give it to my dog?

Originally Posted by winged1

So, if I give it away, can I give it to my dog?

If he's human