Baiting during Season

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by cheemo

What u talkin bout wilis? He insisted that this was my land and camera and blind and generator. He was flat out wrong about it all.

Come on now they are never wrong. They have never charged or harassed an innocent person ever. Anybody who's ever gotten off has gotten off on a technicality. In fact, no one is innocent they are all guilty until they show the technicality that they will get off on.

We are all guilty. They just need to find the evidence to prove it. And certain things like the Charter of Rights just get in their way.

We should all make their jobs easier and just confess to any possible charge they put to us. Because they never charge innocent people you know.

[hal53]

you guys are hilarious, there is hundreds of posts on here about lack of funds for enforcement, there is also an equal number about how you can bend the rules to suit your agenda, finally a SRD officer replies, and you all jump over him, nice work guys, you are a bunch of sorry Outdoorsmen....

[gatorhunter]

Originally Posted by sjemac

Yes, but I proved that I was legal to the RCMP officers. They were satisfied and were willing to let me go. They even tried to call off the game warden. He responded and insisted I still wasn't legal and continued on his route to question me. All told my son and I were detained at the side of the road in the pouring rain for over two hours with our guns on the hood of the RCMP cruiser. His hunt was ruined because of the ignorance of the officer who would not stop and read the actual regulations.

He was wrong. You claim to never have been wrong. I'm sorry I don't buy it or believe it.

Discussion in the instance flowed fine. I am a very cool customer when dealing with any people in authority. Most people aren't. Which is why you can nail them with things they didn't actually do and still remain 100% confident that you've never charged an innocent person.

Once again I commend you for following through on this incident.

I have never claimed that I have not been wrong. Holy smokes! I'm married so I know I make mistakes. Although not nearly as many as momma says I make.

I can only keep repeating that I don't charge people who have not committed violations. It is a horrible attack on an individual who has not committed any illegal acts to submit that individual to injustice. Not only will I not do that, I will without hesitation stop or stand in the way of any colleague who would even suggest such a travesty. I work too hard and too long to have my profession and my name attached to such actions.

The time and energy that I have spent on this topic should be ample example of how seriously I take the law enforcement profession. We have disagreed on many things but I assure you that I work for those who live life within the boundaries of the law to the best of their abilities.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by hal53

you guys are hilarious, there is hundreds of posts on here about lack of funds for enforcement, there is also an equal number about how you can bend the rules to suit your agenda, finally a SRD officer replies, and you all jump over him, nice work guys, you are a bunch of sorry Outdoorsmen....

Right, game wardens are perfect. They never make mistakes. There are none of them out there that look to pinch people for the sake of padding their record.

Don't wrap me into either of those two groups described. I had no dog in this fight until the game warden said that "innocent until proven guilty" was an outdated and archaic idea. For any law enforcement officer to hold that point of view is frightening. The person stating such is not fit to carry a badge or a gun.

Those that hold that point of view see themselves as our overlords not as fellow citizens.

[gatorhunter]

Originally Posted by cheemo

What u talkin bout wilis? He insisted that this was my land and camera and blind and generator. He was flat out wrong about it all. Maybe just maybe some fish and wildlife officers aren't doing their due dilligence when accusing people of crimes. Sheesh

How do you know he was "wrong"? What if he knew a whole bunch of stuff all along but he needed to see what kind of person you were? Your answers either corrected or confirmed what he may have known about you. You may not be as "smart" as you thought you were that day and he may not have been as "dumb" as you thought he was.

So I ask you again, what was the right way to achieve the desired result?

[hal53]

Don't have time to read 7 pages of whining, what did u get charged with???
...and for what it is worth, in this day and age it is pretty archaic, with the lovely do nothing Judges we have they better have their ducks in a row before any charge is filed....

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by hal53

Don't have time to read 7 pages of whining, what did u get charged with???
...and for what it is worth, in this day and age it is pretty archaic, with the lovely do nothing Judges we have they better have their ducks in a row before any charge is filed....

If you aren't going to read what the game warden has written previously, then why would you automatically take his side? Oh right, they are never wrong.

Again, without holding to that tenet of the law we are no better than Iran or North Korea.

And yes, they had better have their ducks in a row. The burden of proof is on them to prove guilt not on the citizen to prove innocence. That might make their jobs inconvenient. However, it is supposed to keep us from being subject to unreasonable arrest and detention and punishment.

[hal53]

Originally Posted by sjemac

If you aren't going to read what the game warden has written previously, then why would you automatically take his side? Oh right, they are never wrong.

Again, without holding to that tenet of the law we are no better than Iran or North Korea.

And yes, they had better have their ducks in a row. The burden of proof is on them to prove guilt not on the citizen to prove innocence. That might make their jobs inconvenient. However, it is supposed to keep us from being subject to unreasonable arrest and detention and punishment.

so..you were arrested, detained and punished????

[cheemo]

Originally Posted by gatorhunter

How do you know he was "wrong"? What if he knew a whole bunch of stuff all along but he needed to see what kind of person you were? Your answers either corrected or confirmed what he may have known about you. You may not be as "smart" as you thought you were that day and he may not have been as "dumb" as you thought he was.

So I ask you again, what was the right way to achieve the desired result?

The right way? Do the due dilligence to make sure before you go accusing guys of crimes that you know what the $&@$ you are talking about. This officer literally told me that all these pics were off of my land. I told him that it wasn't my land and he insisted that it was my land. If you can't even get the landowner right you haven't done your due dilligence. He actually was quite embarrassed when he realized this wasn't my land and was asking me the contact number for the guy who owned it. I guess if u a warden u are somehow perfect in every way and know exactly what u are doing when u screw up. When he left my place he was quite apologetic that this wasn't even my land so don't tell me he knew what he was doing.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by hal53

so..you were arrested, detained and punished????

It's all been posted before. Don't see the need to do it again just for you.

[hal53]

sounds good, your post and the one above it tell me everything I need to know, cheers and Merry Christmas

[elkhunter11]

you guys are hilarious, there is hundreds of posts on here about lack of funds for enforcement, there is also an equal number about how you can bend the rules to suit your agenda, finally a SRD officer replies, and you all jump over him, nice work guys, you are a bunch of sorry Outdoorsmen....

Hal, as you must have seen in my past posts,I am all for dealing with poachers and trespassers, but this person's holier than thou attitude is beyond belief. To boast that he has never charged an innocent person, although the judges have found multiple people that he charged not guilty, of the charges, is laughable at best. I have met many F&W officers over the years, and none has ever come across as being this arrogant or self righteous.

How do you know he was "wrong"? What if he knew a whole bunch of stuff all along but he needed to see what kind of person you were?

So you believe that it's okay to falsely accuse someone of committing violations, even though you know that he is innocent, just to see his reaction to your accusations? That is just plain stupidity.

[hal53]

Ever heard of a PM Elk? or are you hoping to be the 2 million man?, this board is getting bad.....

[sjemac]

..................

[QIsley]

From the Alberta Wildlife Act

40(1) A person shall not set out, use or have in the person’s possession for the purpose of hunting big game anything described in Item 2 of the Schedule.

Item 2
Items prohibited for hunting big game
1 Ammunition of less than .23 calibre.
2 Ammunition that contains non-expanding bullets.
3 An autoloading firearm that has a capacity of more than 5
cartridges in the magazine.
4 A shotgun having a gauge of .410 or less.
5 Any bait consisting of a food attractant, including a mineral and
any representation of a food attractant.

It would appear to me that it is unlawful in Alberta to "Set Out", "Use" or "Possess" bait for the "Purpose" of hunting big game.

Does not say that the person has to be caught hunting over bait, close to bait or within a certain distance of bait, only that the bait (consisting of a food attractant, including a mineral and any representation of a food attractant) was set out, used, or possessed for the purpose of hunting big game.

[walking buffalo]

QIsley,

Are you aware of any people charged under sec40(1) when the bait site was established prior to the hunting season but not maintained after the hunting season opened?

[scrapper]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

With disease transfer concerns being the priority concern, the baiting of ungulates for any reason should be banned in Alberta.

Disease transfer,....how would this argument work on an Elk herd in a sanctuary like the one at Suffield, or what about when the gov starts feeding starving, deer, antelope or elk triggered by a conservation effort, or a public out cry, I watch dear and livestock feed together in the same field every morning from my deck. Has anyone any concrete scientific proof that baiting has any direct tie to CWD. I have never seen any, and without PROOF suggesting it does nothing more than promote someone's completely unsubstantiated musings.

[gatorhunter]

I have not at any time taken a holier than thou position! All I ever said was that I don't charge innocent people. The people that I charge have committed violations. Most of which I have personally observed being committed so I provide first hand evidence. If I charge a person based on witness information, there is corroborating evidence of other forms.

If I have no evidence or insufficient evidence of a person committing an offense or anything less than a full confession after being chartered, then that person is not charged.

By the same token, lack of evidence does not mean that no violation occurred. It can certainly mean that the person in question is innocent. It can also mean that I and/or the Crown believed that there was not enough evidence to proceed with charges.

I have not boasted of any kind of success rate in or out of court. In fact, I have posted that I have lost trials for a variety of reasons. Once again, that the Judge or Justice hearing the matters never used the words, "You are innocent" to the defendant, is not my fault or my responsibility. If anyone has a problem with that, talk to a judge.

To repeat another thing, I go the extra mile to make sure that I am not charging a person who has not committed violations. I would love the naysayers to talk to my colleagues. They would tell you that I've taken them on many extra trips around the proverbial block to rule out, confirm or look for something else; just to make sure!

I have stated in favour and support of some members who upon further explanation of their incidents, showed inappropriate actions by officers. I've recommended actions that should be taken when a person is wrongfully accused, charged and even convicted! I have suggested direction on discussing believed inappropriate action by an officer during an encounter or contact.

Where is this high horse that I'm supposed to be riding?

[FreeLantz]

Holy crap this is getting ridiculous. We are like 10 miles off the original point of this thread now.

[elkhunter11]

I have not at any time taken a holier than thou position! All I ever said was that I don't charge innocent people. The people that I charge have committed violations. Most of which I have personally observed being committed so I provide first hand evidence. If I charge a person based on witness information, there is corroborating evidence of other forms.

If I have no evidence or insufficient evidence of a person committing an offense or anything less than a full confession after being chartered, then that person is not charged.

If you only pursue charges if you have sufficient evidence, then why have the judges found some of the people that you have charged not guilty? Obviously, the judges did not agree that your "evidence" was sufficient to find the accused guilty, so according to the law, they were found not guilty.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by FreeLantz

Holy crap this is getting ridiculous. We are like 10 miles off the original point of this thread now.

Oh yeah, better lock the hubs in boyz, chit's gonna happen!!
IBTL...
Cat

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by gatorhunter

I have not at any time taken a holier than thou position! All I ever said was that I don't charge innocent people. The people that I charge have committed violations. Most of which I have personally observed being committed so I provide first hand evidence. If I charge a person based on witness information, there is corroborating evidence of other forms.

If I have no evidence or insufficient evidence of a person committing an offense or anything less than a full confession after being chartered, then that person is not charged.

By the same token, lack of evidence does not mean that no violation occurred. It can certainly mean that the person in question is innocent. It can also mean that I and/or the Crown believed that there was not enough evidence to proceed with charges.

I have not boasted of any kind of success rate in or out of court. In fact, I have posted that I have lost trials for a variety of reasons. Once again, that the Judge or Justice hearing the matters never used the words, "You are innocent" to the defendant, is not my fault or my responsibility. If anyone has a problem with that, talk to a judge.

To repeat another thing, I go the extra mile to make sure that I am not charging a person who has not committed violations. I would love the naysayers to talk to my colleagues. They would tell you that I've taken them on many extra trips around the proverbial block to rule out, confirm or look for something else; just to make sure!

I have stated in favour and support of some members who upon further explanation of their incidents, showed inappropriate actions by officers. I've recommended actions that should be taken when a person is wrongfully accused, charged and even convicted! I have suggested direction on discussing believed inappropriate action by an officer during an encounter or contact.

Where is this high horse that I'm supposed to be riding?

The high horse is that you are determining innocence or not. Our court system does not ever determine a person to be innocent. They only determine a person to be not guilty or guilty. Therefore, the reason that you have never heard a judge utter the words "you are innocent" is not because the person was not innocent it was simply because you did not have the evidence to convict them. Therefore, according to the law they were innocent because you could not prove them guilty.

I know, it's that whole "innocent until proven guilty" glitch in the Charter of Rights that is screwing things up.

[hal53]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

If you only pursue charges if you have sufficient evidence, then why have the judges found some of the people that you have charged not guilty? Obviously, the judges did not agree that your "evidence" was sufficient to find the accused guilty. In other words, as far as the law is concerned, you charged innocent people.

oh my.....yup , they run around charging innocent people for something to do....???

[elkhunter11]

oh my.....yup , they run around charging innocent people for something to do....???

I would be the first to state that most officers don't make a habit of charging innocent people, but this person claims that he never charges anyone, unless there is sufficient evidence. Then he goes on to tell us that the judges have found people that he charged, not guilty. Obviously the judges, who know the law much better than he does, didn't agree that there was sufficient evidence to gain a conviction, and as a result, they found the accused not guilty.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by hal53

oh my.....yup , they run around charging innocent people for something to do....???

Yes. Some do sometimes. It can be a boring job.

[roger]

Originally Posted by FreeLantz

Holy crap this is getting ridiculous. We are like 10 miles off the original point of this thread now.

agreed.
im quite interested in the interpretation.
almost need a section titled 'ask a Outdoor professional (biogist, LEO, defence lawyer, etc)' were the question is posed and a representitve from that dept responds, then the thread is locked.maybe this could happen in the community segment.
sooo, did that original question get answered by a actual LEO or not? or was it and i missed it.

[Dark Wing]

Love em or hate them SRD is way under staffed. Alberta`s population has exploded and F&W officers have been reduced. If you don`t want to get charged with baiting don`t put bait out during hunting season.

[gatorhunter]

Originally Posted by roger

did that original question get answered by a actual LEO or not? or was it and i missed it.

Lord knows that I tried to answer the question. I also tried my darndest to give some context to the answer(s) by posting what a field/street level law enforcement officer typically does, endures, goes through in his attempts to deal with such an incident. I should add that my pov and context is also influenced by my favourite outdoor recreation activity which is hunting!

I was challenged for doing my job in the way that they want me to do it. But then some said that I don't know how to do my job! I've asked them for direction but they haven't gotten back to me yet. I'm sure that in time, they'll be able to come up with the one and only way for law enforcement officers to do all their jobs regardless of time, place, people, violations, age groups, environment, education, etc., etc., etc.

Unfortunately a few folks chose their own out of context interpretations of some of my comments. I was challenged on "tenets of law" and "constitutional rights and freedoms" of all things. Contemporary, free living, ball busting, true blue Albertans chastising me over freedom infringing laws and Pierre Elliot Trudeau's Constitution! I know, how funny is that?

So ibtl....Merry Christmas everyone!

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Dark Wing

Love em or hate them SRD is way under staffed. Alberta`s population has exploded and F&W officers have been reduced. If you don`t want to get charged with baiting don`t put bait out during hunting season.

It is attitudes like this that floor me. Understaffed or not, SRD has to follow the law as it is written. They do not get to take shortcuts with due process simply because they are understaffed. If i"ntent" is the written law then they had better have firm evidence (that doesn't mean mere opinion) that the intent of the bait was for hunting. Frankly, the law is so badly written that anyone who truly fought it would likely get off. But as others have pointed out the cost of being right often outweighs the cost of being right.

[Snap Shot]

Originally Posted by roger

agreed.
im quite interested in the interpretation.
almost need a section titled 'ask a Outdoor professional (biogist, LEO, defence lawyer, etc)' were the question is posed and a representitve from that dept responds, then the thread is locked.maybe this could happen in the community segment.
sooo, did that original question get answered by a actual LEO or not? or was it and i missed it.

QIsley post is right from a Leo on the topic i believe.