|
|
09-20-2018, 01:37 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,346
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtodrick
|
They need a reason. Some of the reasons are pretty weak, but they still need a reason.
The link you posted is to some dude's blog. He even puts up his pic.
http://svan.ca/
Did you mistakenly put up the wrong link?
A lot of what he says may be true, but he is hardly an authority.
Last edited by Big Sky; 09-20-2018 at 01:56 PM.
|
09-20-2018, 01:51 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,019
|
|
Just a different take on things here........this is cut from the OP.
This whole episode takes a 90degree turn right there.
"Accepting responsibility, I thought well, I will have to pay several hundred dollars in fines, maybe a thousand for my mistakes. Doorknob. Oh well, must learn from it and move on.
Then I find out a few months later that the crown attorney has decided to add another charge to me (making it three) and is asking for $3,000 and 2 years of no hunting"
It not uncommon for over zealous crown attorney's to go to the extreme with the expectation they will get what they want with a plea bargain. Sort of defeats the plea bargain concept and undermines the justice system. We see this all the time and has become the norm. Dump increased risk and financial costs (lawyers) onto the other side, to win. Example:Charge the guy with dangerous driving when they have no evidence of speeding so that the plea bargain gets them what they think was happening and a nice payment to the crown.
Maybe, I should explain this better.....BRINKMANSHIP........Ask for something so unreasonable that the other side is so willing to accept a compromise that you get all and more of what you wanted, or they have to fight and incur massive risk and financial damage. Not to get political..but you see this tactic in how POTUS dealt with North Korea and now with NAFTA. It is effective, but when it fails, it fails in dramatic fashion and with ugly consequences.
|
09-20-2018, 01:52 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,346
|
|
This is from the Solicitor General's website that I referenced earlier.
It is from the 'What Fish and Wildlife Officers Do' section.
Quote:
Through hunter checks, verify hunters have the necessary licences and documentation and ensure compliance with regulations addressing public safety, respect for property and the legal harvest of game.
|
Important to note that it says "verify hunters have the necessary licences .....". It does not say anything about stopping random people on the road to see if they are a hunter.
IMO
If it is obvious that you are a hunter, then they should do the check.
If it is not obvious that you are a hunter, then they should not stop you.
Driving a pickup on a gravel road at the speed limit during hunting season is not a good enough reason to stop someone.
Driving slowly or repeatedly driving back and forth on that same road would be a good enough reason to stop someone. IMO
For interests sake, here's an old article from Alberta Game Warden about a sheep that was killed near the Sheep River sanctuary. Some of you might remember the case as it made the news.
It talks a bit about what constitutes hunting. Scroll down to 'Case in Point'.
http://gamewarden.ab.ca/agwmagazine/...96/archfs6.htm
|
09-20-2018, 01:54 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,258
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck0039
If the officer was in the wrong then good on you for challenging it. What I don't understand about this entire story is:
1) your truck was "X" km away from highway on back road or trail
2) You most likely are wearing camo clothes or an orange vest or something related to hunting
3) it's hunting season in the area you were stopped and checked
How does the officer not have the right to complete a compliance check or random stop? All indications would have been that your hunting?
I'm just a little confused as to how the officer was in the wrong with this story.
|
Exactly,,,,
When can an CO stop a vehicle or not? Is it okay or not to stop a vehicle for a compliance check if he suspects the occupants have been hunting?
Or does the CO now need probable grounds that an offense has taken place in order to stop the vehicle?
If only the latter, compliance checks have become illegal.
|
09-20-2018, 01:54 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,685
|
|
Question.
Can a C.O. instead of pulling you over "for no reason", speed up ahead of you, pull over beside the road, then stop you as you approach and call it a "check stop"?
That would make it legal then, wouldn't it?
I was stopped 3 times last season. Once was when I just got back to my vehicle after hunting and they just happened to be driving by. Makes sense I was carrying a gun and had a dog with me, fully in "hunting attire".
The other two times we were passing each other in opposite direction on a range road. I never gave it a second thought and complied with the stop.
(flashing lights came on so I stopped).
The first question was always something like "doing some hunting today?".
If I say "no, just out visiting a friend", does that mean they can't investigate further?
I get the "if I've nothing to hide, then no worries" argument and that random stops catch a lot of offenders, but also after reading this thread understand the slippery slope of rights and freedoms, and the need to protect those.
|
09-20-2018, 02:23 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 689
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackHeart
Just a different take on things here........this is cut from the OP.
This whole episode takes a 90degree turn right there.
"Accepting responsibility, I thought well, I will have to pay several hundred dollars in fines, maybe a thousand for my mistakes. Doorknob. Oh well, must learn from it and move on.
Then I find out a few months later that the crown attorney has decided to add another charge to me (making it three) and is asking for $3,000 and 2 years of no hunting"
It not uncommon for over zealous crown attorney's to go to the extreme with the expectation they will get what they want with a plea bargain. Sort of defeats the plea bargain concept and undermines the justice system. We see this all the time and has become the norm. Dump increased risk and financial costs (lawyers) onto the other side, to win. Example:Charge the guy with dangerous driving when they have no evidence of speeding so that the plea bargain gets them what they think was happening and a nice payment to the crown.
Maybe, I should explain this better.....BRINKMANSHIP........Ask for something so unreasonable that the other side is so willing to accept a compromise that you get all and more of what you wanted, or they have to fight and incur massive risk and financial damage. Not to get political..but you see this tactic in how POTUS dealt with North Korea and now with NAFTA. It is effective, but when it fails, it fails in dramatic fashion and with ugly consequences.
|
So first we have a over zealous CO and now an over zealous crown prosecutor? Starting to really feel bad for the OP who got caught breaking the law....not really
|
09-20-2018, 02:33 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,939
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Sky
They need a reason. Some of the reasons are pretty weak, but they still need a reason.
The link you posted is to some dude's blog. He even puts up his pic.
http://svan.ca/
Did you mistakenly put up the wrong link?
A lot of what he says may be true, but he is hardly an authority.
|
Yup...and did you actually read who he is on his page. The page in question (which he designed) is from the Canadian Civil Liberties handbook on what the police can do in Canada.
I dare say he knows more than most of us...it's the Canadian Civil Liberties Union that takes this kind of stuff to court. If they don't win...it isn't going to be won.
And in a later post of yours you state what your opinion is as to what Fish and Wildlife and LE can do...which is just that...your opinion. People following 'your' opinion could get themselves in a whole heap of trouble.
|
09-20-2018, 02:57 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alberta
Posts: 3,648
|
|
Moral of the story.
If you commit a wildlife infraction, make sure you don't commit a traffic infraction on the way home.
|
09-20-2018, 03:00 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 689
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sledhead71
Moral of the story.
If you commit a wildlife infraction, make sure you don't commit a traffic infraction on the way home.
|
Exactly! Never break two laws at the same time! lol
|
09-20-2018, 04:18 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 281
|
|
It’s not surprising to me that the op got off on a technicality as that’s what good lawyers do. He could have been poaching or he could have just made a BIG mistake and only he will ever know the truth. What is surprising to me Is that after hunting for “decades” the op didn’t know you needed to keep the sex of the animal properly attached? Seriously?
|
09-20-2018, 04:31 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 281
|
|
It’s not surprising to me that the op got off on a technicality as that’s what good lawyers do. He could have been poaching or he could have just made a BIG mistake and only he will ever know the truth. What is surprising to me Is that after hunting for “decades” the op didn’t know you needed to keep the sex of the animal properly attached? Seriously?
|
09-20-2018, 07:13 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,531
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by happy honker
The first question was always something like "doing some hunting today?".
.
|
To which you should always reply, "No. I've been too busy drinking."
|
09-20-2018, 08:09 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: calgary
Posts: 870
|
|
The way I see it is not the legality of the of the random stop or the offence. It is the violation of the charter of rights and freedom which is the core foundation of the law. It is also the mandate of any law enforcer as part of the justice system.
__________________
“It is not the man who has too little, but the man who craves more, who is poor.”
|
09-20-2018, 08:28 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: McBride/Prince George
Posts: 14,927
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by igorot
The way I see it is not the legality of the of the random stop or the offence. It is the violation of the charter of rights and freedom which is the core foundation of the law. It is also the mandate of any law enforcer as part of the justice system.
|
Some people only see small pictures.
|
09-20-2018, 09:37 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,346
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtodrick
Yup...and did you actually read who he is on his page.
|
It seems that he is a blogger and stay home dad who is ( I'm paraphrasing here ) pompous enough to write an autobiography.
He has nothing to do with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, other than cutting and pasting their material.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtodrick
The page in question (which he designed) is from the Canadian Civil Liberties handbook on what the police can do in Canada.
|
Quoting and/or providing a link to the actual handbook would have far more weight than providing a link to some blogger who is clearly lacking credentials. Again, all he has done is cut and paste. He says he has reformatted the booklet. It leads to me to wonder if he has changed any of the content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtodrick
I dare say he knows more than most of us...
|
Speak for yourself. Cutting and pasting is far from knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtodrick
And in a later post of yours you state what your opinion is as to what Fish and Wildlife and LE can do...which is just that...your opinion. People following 'your' opinion could get themselves in a whole heap of trouble.
|
Not true.
Nowhere in my post did I say what people can or should do.
Nowhere in my post did I say what F&W can do.
I did however, quote the SG's website. It is quite clear that I was quoting it.
However, I did give my opinion as to what I feel would be a reasonable approach for F&W to take when it comes to hunter checks. I'm pretty sure that people could tell it was my opinion, seeing as I said that it was my opinion. .......twice.
This is not about you. It's about constitutional rights. This is a serious discussion and, IMO, the sources of information we rely upon need to be credible.
To avoid further derail, I won't respond to anything that is off topic.
Here's the handbook in question. https://ccla.org/cclanewsite/wp-cont...ts-Booklet.pdf
As for the issue at hand, I am unhappy that the OP went unpunished for what he did. I am happy that his Charter rights were deemed to be more important than the wildlife charges.
|
09-20-2018, 10:18 PM
|
Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wheatland County
Posts: 5,826
|
|
Quite the stretch to believe a guy hunting for decades removed evidence of sex every time. Oh, and forgot to tag an animal! All the knife work required, right down to even testicle removal, never thought to reach over & poke a hole in the tendon to apply a tag?? Guy is either incompetent or a crook, easy pick there.
Too bad he got off the poaching charge, good however the rest of us have our rights properly defended and reinforced in court.
__________________
If you're not a Liberal when you're young, you have no heart. If you're not a Conservative when you're old, you have no brain. Winston Churchill
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. Edmund Burke
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:32 PM.
|