Who’s in the wrong? (F&W vs. Hunter)

[James M]

Scenario. Who’s in the wrong?

“Hunter” has never taken the hunters Ed course. She has purchased licences annually back to 2008. Someone on Facebook tells her she’s hunting illegally for not having the course. The hunting regs say only a “first time hunter” needs the course and by their own definition she is not a first time hunter, so wouldn’t require it. Hunter calls the Smoky Lake F&W office to inquire, and Mr. Possum Cop tells her to go in person the next day to discuss in person (red flag). She goes in the next day and Tree Cop gives her a $120 ticket for holding/applying for a licence while ineligible. He takes it a step further and voids her purchased 2020 deer tag and freezes her AlbertaRELM account until she passes a hunters Ed course. Who’s in the wrong?

[FCLightning]

Hunter is in the wrong

[keeks]

That's a greasy move.

[CNP]

Licensing requirements for first-time hunters
NOTE: all new first-time hunters who have qualified for obtaining recreational hunting licences by successfully completing the Alberta Conservation and Hunter education course, will be required to provide on their WiN profile, their hunter certificate number that is issued to each course graduate, in order to be eligible to purchase a hunting licence.

A first-time hunter is a hunter who 1) has not previously held a hunting licence in Alberta or elsewhere, or 2) has not prior to April 1, 2010, met Alberta first-time hunter criteria, or 3) has not successfully completed a hunter education course in Alberta or elsewhere.

Non-resident and non-resident alien hunters (12 years of age or older) are exempt from the first-time hunter eligibility requirement if they are accompanied by a Hunter Host or a Designated Guide while hunting in Alberta.

...

[rem338win]

If you have to ask.

Just do the course.

[KegRiver]

or 2) has not prior to April 1, 2010, met Alberta first-time hunter criteria,

So, if I was not a first time hunter in 2001, I am considered a first time hunter after April 1 2010?

I thought that was a typo so I looked in up in the regs, it does say that.

[OL_JR]

I'd be fighting that one, and what a cheap move by the officer. If she had her first license in 2008 I don't see how they can write her a ticket. If her first license was after april 1, 2010 then maybe it would be a different story.

Iirc it used to be very easy to become an eligible hunter in Alberta if you had someone taking care of your WIN application that didn't care, or didn't know. All you had to do was check the box that you were eligible. They brought in the rule where you absolutely had to have proof of the course to deter people from trying to skip the course.

[Pathfinder76]

Take them to court.

[elkhunter11]

Hopefully she has proof that she held licenses in 2008. If she registered any animal prior to 2010, or drew tags prior, they would have a record of that in the system. If not, unless she has copies of previous licenses, it may not be easy to prove.

[waldedw]

Another victim of face book, if she had a legally issued WIN card and hunting license in her possession and has had legally issued hunting licenses since 2008 why would she give a crap about what some jack wad on face book says, much less head of to F & W office to stir the pot. she just crapped in her own nest, most people would be better off without face book IMHO

[Smoky buck]

Looks like with the information you provided the regs support the hunter on this one

[45/70/500]

Originally Posted by waldedw

another victim of face book, if she had a legally issued win card and hunting license in her possession and has had legally issued hunting licenses since 2008 why would she give a crap about what some jack wad on face book says, much less head of to f & w office to stir the pot. She just crapped in her own nest, most people would be better off without face book imho

this ^^^^^^^

[philintheblank]

When I got my WIN card back in 2009 I think you had to check a box on the application that said something like you had taken a hunter safety course or held a hunting license in another province.

I got mine in Ontario so I checked the box, never needed to prove anything. seemed like a pretty big loop hole.

if this Hunter never took the course or had a license from another province, how did she qualify for the first license she bought?

I would think that in 2008, she would be a first time hunter and would need a course.

maybe I am missing something.

[Lefty-Canuck]

If she never took the course and was “ineligible” on her first license purchase she continues to be “ineligible” until she takes the course. A false decal statio. By checking the box and then purchasing a license doesn’t magically make you eligible. The onus is on her to prove she took the course or met the eligibility requirements for her first purchase.

There have been cases where people have had every single animal they harvested while ineligible seized by F&W.

Take the damn course!

LC

[Dewey Cox]

It seems like every year this issue rears its head, but only a little bit.
I do wonder why it is never a bigger or smaller issue every year.
Why don't they go ahead and proactively pull everyone's license who doesn't have their hunters ed number on their profile?
Either go all the way, or drop the issue altogether.

[sns2]

I met a young guy who thought he was in the clear because he checked the box, and I mean how is F & W ever gonna find out. Long story short. He got checked out after being stopped. They did some digging and he received a $200 fine for every tag he ever purchased from the time he started hunting. Ended up costing him a couple grand. I am sure there are many like that. It is what it is. To any of you reading, and you are in this situation, just take the course. It is not that big a deal.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by James M

Scenario. Who’s in the wrong?

“Hunter” has never taken the hunters Ed course. She has purchased licences annually back to 2008. Someone on Facebook tells her she’s hunting illegally for not having the course. The hunting regs say only a “first time hunter” needs the course and by their own definition she is not a first time hunter, so wouldn’t require it. Hunter calls the Smoky Lake F&W office to inquire, and Mr. Possum Cop tells her to go in person the next day to discuss in person (red flag). She goes in the next day and Tree Cop gives her a $120 ticket for holding/applying for a licence while ineligible. He takes it a step further and voids her purchased 2020 deer tag and freezes her AlbertaRELM account until she passes a hunters Ed course. Who’s in the wrong?

Possum cop...tree cop....

Your story has nothing valid other than a ignorant story to stir the pot....if you want the answer call F&W office.....

[kurthunter]

Would be tossed in court in 10min lol.Crown aint gonna waste time on that BS.

Take it to court, see what happens best of luck

[Pathfinder76]

The rules on this have been far to vague for far to long. Take them to court.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Dewey Cox

It seems like every year this issue rears its head, but only a little bit.
I do wonder why it is never a bigger or smaller issue every year.
Why don't they go ahead and proactively pull everyone's license who doesn't have their hunters ed number on their profile?
Either go all the way, or drop the issue altogether.

And then again, it would be complete stupidity to think that the course would in any way benefit someone that has held licenses and hunted for 40-50 years. Many of us held licenses long before WIN numbers even existed. It would amount to nothing more than a cash grab.

The rules on this have been far to vague for far to long. Take them to court.

That is likely the only way to get this settled. Let the courts make a decision, and set a precedent.

[James M]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

Possum cop...tree cop....

Your story has nothing valid other than a ignorant story to stir the pot....if you want the answer call F&W office.....

Did I melt a snowflake? Quit your whining. Don’t like it, read another thread.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by James M

Did I melt a snowflake? Quit your whining. Don’t like it, read another thread.

Far from it.....your thread lost its value.....one side hates and the other side likes....and your pot stirring thread is how I view it....not whining just pointing out my perspective is all.....

[CMichaud]

Licensing requirements for first-time hunters

NOTE: all new first-time hunters who have qualified for obtaining recreational hunting licences by successfully completing the Alberta Conservation and Hunter education course, will be required to provide on their WiN profile, their hunter certificate number that is issued to each course graduate, in order to be eligible to purchase a hunting licence.

A first-time hunter is a hunter who 1) has not previously held a hunting licence in Alberta or elsewhere, or 2) has not prior to April 1, 2010, met Alberta first-time hunter criteria, or 3) has not successfully completed a hunter education course in Alberta or elsewhere.

Non-resident and non-resident alien hunters (12 years of age or older) are exempt from the first-time hunter eligibility requirement if they are accompanied by a Hunter Host or a Designated Guide while hunting in Alberta.

This is so poorly worded...I am still trying to understand what they mean here.

What actually was the criteria for an Alberta first-time hunter prior to April 1, 2010?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by CMichaud

Licensing requirements for first-time hunters

NOTE: all new first-time hunters who have qualified for obtaining recreational hunting licences by successfully completing the Alberta Conservation and Hunter education course, will be required to provide on their WiN profile, their hunter certificate number that is issued to each course graduate, in order to be eligible to purchase a hunting licence.

A first-time hunter is a hunter who 1) has not previously held a hunting licence in Alberta or elsewhere, or 2) has not prior to April 1, 2010, met Alberta first-time hunter criteria, or 3) has not successfully completed a hunter education course in Alberta or elsewhere.

Non-resident and non-resident alien hunters (12 years of age or older) are exempt from the first-time hunter eligibility requirement if they are accompanied by a Hunter Host or a Designated Guide while hunting in Alberta.

This is so poorly worded...I am still trying to understand what they mean here.

What actually was the criteria for an Alberta first-time hunter prior to April 1, 2010?

When I obtained my very first WIN card, the fact that I had held hunting licenses in other provinces and states met the criteria. All of the other wording has been added since, and it has only succeeded in confusing many people.

Far from it.....your thread lost its value.....one side hates and the other side likes....and your pot stirring thread is how I view it....not whining just pointing out my perspective is all.....

Actually the fact that so many people are confused by this, makes this a valid thread. And hopefully this goes to court and the result is that the definition is rewritten to make it easier to understand.

[Dewey Cox]

I have heard a few stories of people being given a ticket for every license they've held without having their hunters ed course.
If someone who has been hunting for two decades gets their course today, that's still 20 years of licenses without the course. Are they still going to get fined for those? What if they decide its not worth the trouble, and stop hunting?

[Dewey Cox]

Originally Posted by CMichaud

Licensing requirements for first-time hunters

NOTE: all new first-time hunters who have qualified for obtaining recreational hunting licences by successfully completing the Alberta Conservation and Hunter education course, will be required to provide on their WiN profile, their hunter certificate number that is issued to each course graduate, in order to be eligible to purchase a hunting licence.

A first-time hunter is a hunter who 1) has not previously held a hunting licence in Alberta or elsewhere, or 2) has not prior to April 1, 2010, met Alberta first-time hunter criteria, or 3) has not successfully completed a hunter education course in Alberta or elsewhere.

Non-resident and non-resident alien hunters (12 years of age or older) are exempt from the first-time hunter eligibility requirement if they are accompanied by a Hunter Host or a Designated Guide while hunting in Alberta.

This is so poorly worded...I am still trying to understand what they mean here.

What actually was the criteria for an Alberta first-time hunter prior to April 1, 2010?

Actually, that is the clearest I've ever seen this.
If you haven't taken the course, you are considered a first time hunter.
As a first time hunter, you are required to take the course.

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by chuck

Take them to court.

Easy enough to do, nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Grizz

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Dewey Cox

Actually, that is the clearest I've ever seen this.
If you haven't taken the course, you are considered a first time hunter.
As a first time hunter, you are required to take the course.

You are conveniently ignoring the words between your two bolded texts, and those words make your interpretation incorrect.

[Dewey Cox]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

You are conveniently ignoring the two ORs, and those two little words make your interpretation incorrect.
When it comes to legal definitions, wording is important.

Yes, there is an "or" in between each statement, not an "and" or an "and/or"
I would take that to mean that each of those things on their own is enough to satisfy the statement at the beginning of the paragraph.
(I will be the first to admit that my understanding of something could be completely wrong, though. It did happen one other time...)

[270person]

I was of the assumption that if you'd purchased tags and hunted prior to the whole WIN card, hunter training course, and "2010" date you were good to go.

Leave it to government to fabricate grey areas. Its especially greasy of F & W to penalize and fine someone trying to do whats right.

Its no different than hammering someone for not having taken a driver's training course back in the day, yes there are some and used to be tons, thats been driving for 70 years.