Fishing Regulation Question on Clarity

[Jon]

I was looking at the Ontario fishing regulations the other day and was reading the page about who needs a fishing licence. I am fully aware of the ages at which Ontario residents need or don't need a licence but found myself thinking the wording MNR is now using is very unclear about this topic.

 

The 2008/09 regulations state that "anglers do not need a fishing licence if they are residents of Ontario and Canada under 18 or 65 years of age or older and in possession of their birth certificate". The only referece I could find in the 2014 regualtion's relating to this requirement is as follows: "A person is deemed to be the holder of a Recreational Fishing Licence if they are: 1. Residents of Ontario and Canada under 18 years old, or 65 years of age or older and in possession of any licence, permit, certificate or identification card issued by the Government of Canada or a provincial or territorial government of Canada that indicates their name and date of birth."

 

I think I understand what this is saying but for someone new to angling or who doesn't speak English very well, I think this is not at all clear about at who age anglers need to buy a licence and will certainly not help with the regular issue of anglers not buying licences.

 

If anyone is able to find better wording or if they are also confused by this, please let me know.

 

2014 Fishing Regulations - Licence Info.

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@letsfish/documents/document/198219.pdf

 

Jon

[BillM]

What's so hard to understand about that? If you're a resident of Ontario or Canada and under the age of 18 or over 65 (with proof of age) you do not require a fishing licence.

[Roy]

It sounds perfectly clear to me. Which part do you think might be confusing to people?

[jbailey]

hmm *edit* nvm haha

Edited January 17, 2014 by JBailey

[Gregoire]

I've got to agree with the other sentiments shared. It seems like an improvement to me, as a person is no longer required to carry their birth certificate as proof of age. It would also make it easier for people who are not born in Canada to prove their age.

[Jon]

I agree with making it easier for people without an Ontario birth certificate but still find the wording could be better regarding the ages at which anglers need or don't need a licence. The MNR web-site is nice and clear - Most Ontario residents need an Ontario-issued Outdoors Card and fishing licence tag to fish in Ontario if they are at least 18 years old but have not reached their 65th birthday. The regs should say this as well!

 

Jon

[Terry]

I don't get it

seems 100% clear to me

[DundasSteelheader]

Seems clear enough to me. However I have been asked for ID before by cops checking licences to prove I am under 18. The way these regs are worded makes it seem that only those over 65 need to prove their age with a gov. issued ID. Am I just reading it wrong or do I really need to carry ID with me?

[davey buoy]

Seems clear enough to me. However I have been asked for ID before by cops checking licences to prove I am under 18. The way these regs are worded makes it seem that only those over 65 need to prove their age with a gov. issued ID. Am I just reading it wrong or do I really need to carry ID with me?

If your under 18?,have some proof.Then when your 18,you have the card,all's good.The wording can sometimes be a little difficult.

Edited January 17, 2014 by davey buoy

[bobogo]

is it the comma that is after "18 years old" confusing?

If anything, it's people who don't speak English that will understand this clearly. For us folks who speak English well and have taken grammar classes, the wording is confusing!

[lew]

Before you turn 18 you don't need a license and once you reach 65 you don't need a license, just proof of your age.

[lookinforwalleye]

It is the governments job to confuse!!!

[Roy]

is it the comma that is after "18 years old" confusing?

If anything, it's people who don't speak English that will understand this clearly. For us folks who speak English well and have taken grammar classes, the wording is confusing!

 

Both passages quoted are grammatically correct.

[vance]

Well i will be 65 in may and the mnr wouldn't sell me a licence because i am in my 65th year,I phoned and asked and got yes I do and no you dont need a license from 2 different people and the web site wouldnt let me buy one so how is that for UNclarity..

 

vance

[misfish]

GO FISH.

[Roy]

Well i will be 65 in may and the mnr wouldn't sell me a licence because i am in my 65th year,I phoned and asked and got yes I do and no you dont need a license from 2 different people and the web site wouldnt let me buy one so how is that for UNclarity..

 

vance

 

The year I turned 65 I bought a fishing license because my birthday was in July and I knew that I'd certainly be fishing before July. The following year I didn't buy one.

[bobogo]

 

Both passages quoted are grammatically correct.

 

never said it wasn't. The point I was making was that people that are more in tune with grammar will tend to over analyze sentences causing the confusing stated in the OP. Also the confusing from my post and yours.

[Entropy]

oh dear. so sorry ..... everyone now clarifies. The OP understands, but thinks new Canadians might not. Some times less is more, I think that is the idea, ... or not.

[HTHM]

oh dear. so sorry ..... everyone now clarifies. The OP understands, but thinks new Canadians might not. Some times less is more, I think that is the idea, ... or not.

Lawyers make money off of semantics.....

[Bluegill]

-

Edited November 6, 2014 by Bluegill

[John Bacon]

If your under 18?,have some proof.Then when your 18,you have the card,all's good.The wording can sometimes be a little difficult.

 

I am with DundasStealheader on this. The wording indicates that those over 65 need to carry ID to prove it; but it is not clear that those under 18 to carry ID.