Abandoning Moose Meat in Ontario:

---

Last Updated: August 29 2026

---

Question:What should I do if I received a hunting ticket in Ontario for abandoning moose meat or letting it spoil?

Answer:If you’ve received a provincial offence ticket or summons in Ontario for abandoning moose meat or permitting it to become unsuitable for human consumption, act fast: don’t pay or make extra statements until you confirm the exact charge wording and subsection under Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, and identify whether the allegation is abandonment under s. 36(1) or spoilage under s. 36(2) (the responsible person may differ).  Preserve every document and evidence item such as the ticket, Moose Tag and licence summary, hunter reports, photos, videos, GPS data, messages, weather notes, refrigeration or freezer logs, and seizure papers.   If you’re weighing your options for responding to the court deadline or addressing seizure and forfeiture, DefendCharges.ca™ can help you organize the issues, assess evidence, and prepare a response with a practical paralegal-led approach in Ontario.   Call (647) 559-3377.

Add this website to Google Preferred Sources

---

Abandoning Moose Meat in Ontario

Received a hunting ticket or summons for abandoning moose meat or allowing moose meat to become unsuitable for human consumption in Ontario?  You have been charged with a provincial offence under Ontario hunting law.  Your charge may involve abandonment under section 36(1), spoilage under section 36(2), or another offence arising from the same incident.

Note: Please contact DefendCharges.ca™ by phone at: (647) 559-3377 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.

Do not panic.  Being charged does not automatically mean you will be convicted.  This type of charge is commonly called wanton waste, although section 36 of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 instead separately addresses abandoning killed game wildlife where its flesh may become unsuitable for human consumption and permitting the flesh of possessed game wildlife to become unsuitable for human consumption.

This page explains the difference between abandonment and spoilage, what section 36 requires, what must be proven, the current set fines, evidence, possible defences, seizure and forfeiture, and what may happen in court.  If your documents list several moose charges, see Moose Hunting Charges to identify the charges you may be facing.

What Should I Do Next?

Read every document carefully and do not miss the response deadline or court date.  Record the precise offence wording, section number, alleged date, location, and description of the moose or meat involved.

Before deciding how to respond, identify:

• The exact wording and subsection of every charge;
• Whether the charge concerns abandonment, spoilage, or both;
• Who killed, tagged, recovered, transported, stored, or processed the moose;
• What flesh was allegedly left behind or allowed to become unsuitable;
• When and where the moose was harvested, found, moved, cooled, or stored;
• What recovery and preservation efforts were made; and
• What wildlife or other property was seized.

Preserve the ticket or summons, Moose Tag, Licence Summary, hunter report, photographs, videos, GPS tracks, messages, weather records, ice or fuel receipts, processor communications, refrigeration or freezer records, repair invoices, and seizure documents.  These records may help establish who was responsible, what condition the flesh was in, and what reasonable steps were taken.

Do not delete messages, alter photographs, dispose of disputed meat, remove evidence from a location, change labels, or coordinate accounts with other participants after learning of an investigation.  Follow any lawful directions concerning seized, spoiled, or potentially unsafe meat and consider obtaining legal advice before making an additional statement.

Should I Pay the Ticket?

Paying a ticket will generally be treated as pleading guilty and will result in a conviction without a trial.  Before paying, confirm whether the ticket charges you with abandoning flesh suitable for food under section 36(1), wasting flesh suitable for food under section 36(2), or another offence.

The two section 36 charges are legally distinct.  One focuses on a hunter or trapper who killed and abandoned the wildlife.  The other focuses on a person who possessed hunted or trapped wildlife and permitted its flesh to become unsuitable for human consumption.

If several tickets arose from the same incident, paying one does not resolve the others.  Review the wording, subsection, response deadline, set fine, possible licence related order, and treatment of seized property before deciding how to respond.

What Is Abandoning Moose Meat?

For a section 36(1) charge, the central issue is whether you were the hunter who killed the moose and abandoned it where its flesh may become unsuitable for human consumption.  The legal concern is not simply that bones, hide, antlers, or other remains were left at a kill site.

The conduct described in the charge may involve:

• Leaving the entire carcass at or near the kill site;
• Removing the antlers, head, hide, or selected cuts while leaving usable flesh;
• Discarding a carcass before reasonably available meat was recovered;
• Leaving a recovered moose exposed to conditions that could make the flesh unsuitable;
• Leaving meat at a camp, vehicle, trailer, or property without arranging for its care; or
• Failing to return for a moose after allegedly leaving it only temporarily.

For section 36(1), the prosecutor does not necessarily have to prove that the flesh had already spoiled when the moose was abandoned.  The subsection applies where the flesh may become unsuitable for human consumption.

The prosecutor must still prove that you were the hunter or trapper who killed the moose and abandoned it in the circumstances prohibited by law.  Finding a carcass does not automatically prove who killed or abandoned it.  If the same incident resulted in more than one moose charge, see Moose Hunting Charges to identify the other charges you may be facing.

What Does Wanton Waste Mean?

Wanton waste is a common hunting expression for unnecessarily leaving edible wildlife behind or allowing usable meat to spoil.  It is a useful everyday description, but it is not the wording used in section 36.

The formal charge may be “Abandon flesh suitable for food” under section 36(1) or “Waste flesh suitable for food” under section 36(2).  Those short form descriptions should be read together with the full statutory wording.

What Is the Difference Between Abandonment and Spoilage?

Abandonment and spoilage are related but legally distinct charges.

Abandonment under section 36(1) focuses on a hunter or trapper who killed game wildlife and then abandoned it if its flesh may become unsuitable for human consumption.

Spoilage under section 36(2) focuses on a person who possessed hunted or trapped game wildlife and permitted its flesh to become unsuitable for human consumption.  That person does not have to be the hunter who killed the moose.

The distinction may matter where one person harvested the animal and another transported, cooled, processed, or stored the meat.  Party membership or access to a shared camp, vehicle, or freezer does not automatically prove individual responsibility.

What Law Applies?

Section 36 of Ontario’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 contains the principal rules concerning abandoned and spoiled game meat.

Section 36(1): Abandonment

Section 36(1) provides that a hunter or trapper who kills game wildlife other than a furbearing mammal must not abandon it if its flesh may become unsuitable for human consumption.

Section 36(2): Spoiled Flesh

Section 36(2) provides that a person who possesses game wildlife that is not a furbearing mammal and that was hunted or trapped must not permit its flesh to become unsuitable for human consumption.

Why the Wildlife Category Matters

Game wildlife includes game mammals, and moose are legally classified as big game.  Moose are not furbearing mammals, so the meat provisions in subsections 36(1) and 36(2) may apply.

Section 101: Due Diligence and Mistake of Fact

Section 101 provides that a person must not be convicted if the person establishes due diligence or an honest and reasonable belief in facts that, if true, would make the conduct innocent.  Due diligence means taking all reasonable care in the circumstances to prevent the offence.

Simply not knowing the law, no longer wanting the meat, or finding recovery inconvenient is not necessarily a defence.  The available legal issues depend on the subsection charged and the evidence of recovery, preservation, possession, and control.

What Must Be Proven?

The prosecutor must prove every required part of the particular charge beyond a reasonable doubt.  Beyond a reasonable doubt is the high legal standard required before the court can find you guilty.  A statutory defence under section 101 must be established by the person relying on it.

For an Abandonment Charge Under Section 36(1)

The prosecution may need to prove:

• You were the person involved;
• You were a hunter or trapper;
• You killed the moose;
• You abandoned the moose;
• The flesh may become unsuitable for human consumption; and
• The conduct occurred on the date and at the place alleged.

For a Spoilage Charge Under Section 36(2)

The prosecution may need to prove:

• You were the person involved;
• You possessed the moose or moose meat;
• The wildlife was hunted or trapped game wildlife;
• The wildlife was not a furbearing mammal;
• You permitted its flesh to become unsuitable for human consumption; and
• The conduct occurred on the date and at the place alleged.

The discovery of a carcass near a camp, spoiled meat in a shared freezer, or packages bearing an unclear label may not by itself establish who killed, possessed, abandoned, or controlled the moose.  The evidence must connect you to the required parts of the subsection charged.

Does the Moose Meat Have to Be Completely Spoiled?

Not necessarily.  The answer depends on whether your charge concerns abandonment or spoilage.

For abandonment, section 36(1) refers to leaving killed game wildlife where its flesh may become unsuitable for human consumption.  The prosecution may therefore rely on the location, temperature, delay, exposure, lack of protection, and other circumstances even if the flesh was not yet completely spoiled when found.

For spoilage, section 36(2) refers to permitting the flesh to become unsuitable for human consumption.  The prosecution must address the actual condition of the flesh and connect your possession and conduct to that condition.

Appearance, odour, texture, internal and external temperature, decomposition, contamination, insect activity, scavenger damage, and the time between harvesting, recovery, cooling, storage, and inspection may all be relevant.  An unattractive carcass or unpleasant smell does not automatically resolve every legal issue.

Which Parts of a Moose Must Be Recovered?

Section 36 focuses on flesh and whether it may become or has become unsuitable for human consumption.  It does not say that every bone, organ, hide, hoof, antler, or other part of a moose must be eaten, retained, or processed.

The evidence may address whether usable flesh from the shoulders, hindquarters, backstraps, tenderloins, neck, ribs, or other portions was left behind.  The evidence may need to distinguish usable flesh from:

• Bones, hide, hooves, antlers, and other non-flesh remains;
• Tissue extensively damaged by a projectile;
• Flesh contaminated by stomach or intestinal contents;
• Diseased, decomposed, or otherwise unsafe tissue;
• Portions damaged by predators, scavengers, chemicals, or another hazard; and
• Small remnants that could not reasonably be separated from damaged material.

Photographs, carcass examination, packaged meat weights, processor records, witness evidence, and expert or food safety evidence may help establish what was recovered and whether the disputed flesh was suitable for human consumption.

Does the Size or Remote Location of a Moose Change the Law?

The size of a moose and the difficulty of the location do not automatically remove the obligations in section 36.  They may, however, be important when assessing what recovery and preservation steps were reasonably available.

Relevant circumstances may include distance from road access, terrain, water crossings, darkness, temperature, equipment failure, available help, vehicle access, physical safety, the number of trips required, and whether you contacted a Conservation Officer or arranged assistance.

A temporary separation is different from abandonment, but an intention to return may require support from GPS tracks, messages, requests for help, equipment arrangements, and return travel.

What if the Moose Was Wounded and Could Not Be Found?

An unsuccessful search for a wounded moose does not automatically prove an abandonment offence.  Section 36(1) requires proof that you killed the moose and abandoned it in circumstances where its flesh may become unsuitable for human consumption.

The evidence may address the shot, blood trail, search area, tracking time, requests for assistance, return searches, weather, terrain, and when the animal was found.

If the prosecution cannot prove that you killed the moose or cannot prove abandonment, a required part of the charge may be missing.  Conversely, evidence that a mortally wounded moose was located or could reasonably have been recovered and was then left may support the prosecution’s case, depending on the full circumstances.

What if the Meat Spoiled Because of an Unexpected Problem?

An unexpected breakdown, power failure, freezer malfunction, weather event, injury, or transportation problem may be relevant, but it does not automatically answer the charge.

The court may consider what happened, whether it was reasonably foreseeable, how quickly you responded, and what alternatives were available.  Evidence may include repair invoices, outage records, temperature logs, generator or ice receipts, calls for help, processor communications, photographs, and efforts to move or preserve the meat.

For a section 36(2) charge, the key question is not merely whether the meat spoiled.  The prosecution must connect you to possession and to permitting the flesh to become unsuitable, while any due diligence defence depends on whether all reasonable care was taken.

Does a Section 36 Charge Require You to Have Killed the Moose?

It depends on the subsection charged.  A section 36(1) abandonment charge requires proof that you were the hunter or trapper who killed and abandoned the moose.  A section 36(2) spoilage charge does not require that you killed the moose.

A section 36(2) charge may concern a person who agreed to transport, cool, process, store, or otherwise care for the meat, including meat found in a place allegedly under that person’s possession or control.

Legal responsibility is not automatic merely because you helped, lived at the location, owned the freezer, or belonged to the hunting party.  Knowledge, access, control, agreements, labels, messages, payments, and your actual role may all matter.

What if the Same Incident Resulted in More Than One Charge?

The same moose hunting incident may result in several charges, but each must be proven separately.

Your documents may include a charge concerning an unlawful harvest or transportation issue as well as abandonment or spoilage.  Evidence supporting another charge does not automatically prove a section 36 offence, and a section 36 charge does not automatically prove another offence arising from the same incident.

Start with the exact wording and section number on every ticket or summons.  Different people involved in the same incident may face different charges based on their individual conduct.

What Common Situations Are Involved in This Charge?

The Carcass Was Left at the Kill Site

The charge may say that you killed the moose, removed antlers or selected portions, and left usable flesh where it could become unsuitable for human consumption.

You Said You Intended to Return

The carcass may have been left temporarily, while the prosecution questions whether there was a genuine recovery plan, whether reasonable protective steps were taken, and whether the return occurred promptly.

The Moose Was Difficult to Reach or Remove

Terrain, distance, darkness, weather, water, vehicle access, or the animal’s size may have complicated recovery.  The case may turn on the available options and the steps actually taken.

Meat Spoiled During Transport or at Camp

The charge may concern quarters or packaged meat that the prosecution says were left too long without adequate cooling, ventilation, protection, or refrigeration.

A Freezer or Refrigeration System Failed

The meat may have become unsuitable after a breakdown or outage, and the issue may be whether the person responsible responded reasonably and used available alternatives.

What Is the Fine?

The current Ontario set fine is $150 for “Abandon flesh suitable for food” under section 36(1) and $150 for “Waste flesh suitable for food” under section 36(2).

A set fine is the preset fine used when an offence proceeds by ticket.  It is different from the total payable amount, which may also include a victim fine surcharge and applicable court costs.

A summons may proceed without a preset ticket amount.  Under section 102(1) of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, the general maximum penalty for an individual is a fine of up to $25,000, imprisonment for up to one year, or both, unless another penalty provision applies.  These are statutory maximums, not the automatic or usual result of every section 36 charge.

Section 104 may permit the court, after conviction, to make a discretionary order affecting a licence, authorization, or regulated hunting activity where the legal requirements are met.  A hunting privilege order is not automatic in every section 36 case.

What Evidence May Be Used?

Abandonment and spoilage cases often depend on the condition of the flesh, the timeline, recovery efforts, preservation measures, and individual responsibility.

Kill Site and Carcass Evidence

Conservation Officer observations, photographs, video, maps, measurements, tracks, blood, carcass remains, removed portions, antlers, hide, insect activity, scavenger damage, and the position of the animal may show what was left and in what condition.

Meat Condition and Temperature Evidence

Appearance, odour, texture, internal temperature, decomposition, contamination, weather records, refrigeration data, freezer temperatures, and expert or processor evidence may address whether flesh was suitable for human consumption and when its condition changed.

Recovery and Preservation Evidence

GPS tracks, search logs, messages, calls, radio traffic, requests for assistance, return trips, ice or fuel receipts, equipment records, cooling methods, repair invoices, generator records, and processor arrangements may show what steps were taken.

Licensing, Tag, and Harvest Evidence

Moose Licences, Moose Tags, Licence Summaries, tag invalidation information, hunter reports, party hunting records, photographs, and Ministry records may identify who harvested the moose and connect it to the incident described in the charge.

Possession and Control Evidence

Freezer ownership, keys, labels, storage arrangements, vehicle use, camp occupancy, processor forms, payment records, messages, admissions, and witness evidence may show who possessed or controlled the meat.

Officer, Witness, and Electronic Evidence

Conservation Officer notes, body camera or dash camera recordings, statements from hunters or other witnesses, photographs, videos, phone records, social media content, and location data may help reconstruct the timeline and each person’s role.

No single item necessarily proves the charge.  The evidence must be considered in relation to the requirements of the precise subsection charged.

Disclosure is the relevant information in the prosecutor’s possession or control that you are entitled to receive, subject to the law.  It should be reviewed against the requirements of the exact subsection charged and compared with records supporting recovery, preservation, lawful possession, or individual responsibility.

What Possible Defences or Legal Issues May Apply?

The available issues depend on whether your charge concerns abandonment or spoilage and on the evidence.  No defence automatically guarantees that a charge will be withdrawn or dismissed.

You Did Not Kill or Abandon the Moose

A section 36(1) case may fail if the evidence does not reliably identify you as the hunter who killed and abandoned the animal.  Presence at the location or membership in the hunting party may not be enough.

You Did Not Possess or Control the Meat

For section 36(2), the prosecution must connect you to possession and to permitting the flesh to become unsuitable.  Shared access to a camp, vehicle, residence, or freezer does not automatically establish that connection.

The Moose Was Temporarily Left for Recovery

The evidence may show a genuine plan to obtain help, equipment, lawful access, transportation, or safer conditions and a prompt return.  The timing and protective steps taken remain important.

The Disputed Material Was Not Usable Flesh

The portions left behind may have been bone, hide, organs, projectile damaged tissue, contaminated flesh, diseased material, or flesh already unsuitable for human consumption for reasons not caused by you.

Reasonable Preservation Steps Were Taken

Unexpected heat, mechanical failure, injury, outage, delay, or processor problems may be relevant where you took reasonable steps to prevent spoilage and responded appropriately when the problem arose.

The Condition or Timeline Was Not Reliably Proven

Gaps in continuity, uncertain temperatures, delayed inspection, contamination after seizure, inconsistent photographs, unreliable identification, or conflicting witness evidence may affect whether the statutory condition was proven.

Due Diligence or an Honest and Reasonable Mistake of Fact May Apply

Section 101 may apply where you establish that all reasonable care was taken or that you honestly and reasonably believed facts that, if true, would have made the conduct innocent.  A misunderstanding of the law is different from an honest and reasonable mistake about a fact.

Legal issues involving a stop, inspection, search, seizure, questioning, or statement may also require separate review.  A defence or evidentiary issue should be assessed against the actual disclosure rather than assumed from the page title.

Could the Moose or Other Property Be Seized or Forfeited?

Yes, where the legal requirements for seizure or forfeiture are met.  A Conservation Officer who is lawfully in a place may seize property where the statutory grounds concerning an offence or evidence are satisfied.

Depending on the investigation, seized items may include:

• The moose carcass, meat, antlers, hide, or other wildlife evidence;
• Tags, licences, hunter reports, labels, and processing records;
• Coolers, freezers, generators, containers, or packaging;
• Phones, cameras, GPS devices, radios, or electronic records;
• Vehicles, ATVs, trailers, boats, or other transportation equipment; and
• Other property believed to be evidence or connected to the offence.

Seizure means property has been taken into official custody.  It does not establish guilt.

Forfeiture means ownership is permanently lost through a legally authorized process.  Dead wildlife seized during an investigation may be forfeited if the person responsible for its custody considers it likely to spoil.  Following conviction, wildlife seized in connection with the offence may also be forfeited as provided by law, while other seized property may be subject to an authorized forfeiture order.

What Happens in Court?

What happens in court depends on whether you received a ticket or summons, how you respond, and whether other charges were laid.  A disputed matter may be resolved before trial or may proceed to trial.

If you dispute the charge, disclosure should be requested and reviewed.  It may include Conservation Officer notes, photographs, video, witness statements, licensing and tag records, GPS information, weather data, processor and storage records, electronic communications, meat condition evidence, and seizure documents.

The review should identify the exact subsection, whether you allegedly killed or possessed the moose, what flesh was involved, when it became or could become unsuitable, and what recovery or preservation steps were taken.  Every additional charge should be assessed separately.

If the case proceeds to trial, the court decides whether the prosecutor proved every required part of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, subject to any legal burden that applies.  If there is a conviction, the court determines the penalty and any legally available order concerning hunting activity or seized property.

How Can DefendCharges.ca™ Help?

DefendCharges.ca™ can review the wording on your ticket, summons, seizure notice, or other documents and compare it with the wildlife, records, and activity involved.  This can help identify the exact charge, the legal requirements that apply, and the factual issues that may be important to your case.

If the matter proceeds through court, DefendCharges.ca™ can explain the court process, review the available evidence and legal issues, discuss possible penalties or other consequences, and help you understand your options for responding to the charge.

Have Questions About Hunting Charges?

Whether you have been charged with one hunting offence or several, understanding your legal options is important.  DefendCharges.ca™ can review your case, explain the charges you are facing, and help you understand your legal options and the best course of action.  Contact us today to discuss your situation.

Key Takeaways

• Ontario law separately addresses abandoning killed game wildlife and permitting possessed game wildlife flesh to become unsuitable for human consumption;
• Wanton waste is a common expression, not the formal wording used in section 36;
• A section 36(1) abandonment charge requires proof that you were the hunter or trapper who killed and abandoned the moose;
• A section 36(2) spoilage charge does not require that you killed the moose, but possession and responsibility for permitting the flesh to become unsuitable must be proven;
• The condition of the flesh, recovery efforts, preservation measures, timeline, and individual control may be central;
• The current set fine is $150 for either the section 36(1) or section 36(2) ticket offence; and
• Moose, meat, electronic devices, vehicles, storage equipment, and other property may be seized where the legal requirements are met.

Conclusion

Being charged with abandoning moose meat or permitting moose meat to become unsuitable for human consumption does not automatically mean you will be convicted.  The case depends on the subsection charged, the required condition of the flesh, and your individual conduct.

The exact wording on your ticket or summons, evidence of who killed or possessed the moose, recovery and preservation efforts, the condition and timeline of the flesh, and the reliability of the prosecution evidence may all be important.  Before paying a ticket or responding to a summons, make sure you understand the precise charge, the possible consequences, and your legal options.