Problems with fish and wildlife officer

[waterninja]

Originally Posted by kennedy

So, the question here is: Is it legal for a fish and wildlife officer to just open the truck door and grab your gun without asking? Can they also search your vehicle without a warrant? I guess, they would need probable cause to do that but what if its a random stop? The ones i always encountered have been pretty decent and respectful. Met one last year in foxcreek that was very nice.

I am always amassed at how naive most people are. At the same time, most people never (or rarely) get stopped by authorities, or have to be questioned by them.
I think it's from watching all those US cop shows.

[MKD]

Here are some contacts up the food chain:

Boyco, Daniel
780 427-2372 Chief Fish and Wildlife Officer


Bryden, Philip
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Solicitor General
Office of the Deputy Minister, Justice and Solicitor General and Deputy Attorney General
Justice and Solicitor General
2nd fl Bowker Building
9833 - 109 Street
Edmonton, AB
T5K 2E8

Phone: 780 427-5032
E-mail: philip.bryden@gov.ab.ca

[ResidentSpokesman]

Originally Posted by Opa

We had a fish cop up here who was the epitome of idiot. He would stop everyone, grab the door of the vehicle, and root through the inside. My Chessie got particularly ugly with him, when he grabbed the dog by the collar and fired him out of the vehicle in his hurry to search. It was all that I could do to keep a very well trained and socialized dog from chewing on him. I informed him that I neither carried a rifle in the vehicle, nor were there were any fish in the vehicle, and that it would be in his best health interests that he not touch the dog again. All of the other fish cops knew that and left me alone. The dog had so much disdain for the guy, that when I was being checked out on the ice, the dog came running from some distance away, came up behind the sob, cocked his leg and peed on his feltpacks. He never bothered me again!!!

Sounds like Ben Biro...

[boonie]

I can't say I've had any bad meetings either. Did have one who after checking guns and license started asking me who owned the quarter of land on each side of the road we were on and the 2 quarters further up. I answered him and said I can hunt on all of them too. He just said have a good day and left.
Did have one friend who was stopped with a deer in the back of the truck. First thing officer asked was " Did you shoot it out of the window".

[Big Sky]

Originally Posted by kennedy

So, the question here is: Is it legal for a fish and wildlife officer to just open the truck door and grab your gun without asking? Can they also search your vehicle without a warrant? I guess, they would need probable cause to do that but what if its a random stop?

From the Wildlife Act

71(1) If distance, urgency, the imminent danger of the loss,
removal, destruction or disappearance of evidence or other relevant
factors do not reasonably permit the obtaining of a warrant, a
wildlife officer or wildlife guardian may, without obtaining a
warrant,
(a) enter into and search any premises or a place, vehicle,
aircraft, boat or a building, tent or other structure,
(a.1) search any land lawfully entered on under section 66, or
(b) search any container, including a pack, or any
pack-animal,
if the officer or guardian believes on reasonable and probable
grounds that there is in or on it any evidence of an offence against
this Act.

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by Big Sky

From the Wildlife Act

What is a wildlife guardian??

I had one bad experience with a CO, real bad, and now I don't trust them very much as it seems they only ask you questions to try and develop an excuse to charge you with something. But that is just my one bad one, this fall the two we ran into were real sociable and not at all like that.

[Big Sky]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

What is a wildlife guardian??

This should make it clear.

(mm) “wildlife guardian” or “guardian” means a person
appointed as a wildlife guardian under section 2(1);

Wildlife guardians
2(1) The Minister may appoint wildlife guardians.
(2) Wildlife guardians have the powers and duties provided by this
Act and any other law and any other duties that are directed by the
Minister.
(3) Wildlife guardians, in the exercise and performance of their
powers and duties under this Act, shall act on the directions of the
Minister.

I'm not sure if I could tell you what one looks like.

[Joe Black]

Originally Posted by Big Sky

From the Wildlife Act

But would'nt this only apply if there is a crime/infraction in progress, or very good grounds(witness or report of a crime/infraction) received? I read it as the grounds for not obtaining a warrant, not that they can do the enclosed carte Blanche.

If they have a roadblock and are checking all vehicles, I think is a different situation.

[super7mag]

One told me once that the F&W have a saying " in god we trust, everyone else is guilty "!

[Springer]

Originally Posted by Opa

We had a fish cop up here who was the epitome of idiot. He would stop everyone, grab the door of the vehicle, and root through the inside. My Chessie got particularly ugly with him, when he grabbed the dog by the collar and fired him out of the vehicle in his hurry to search. It was all that I could do to keep a very well trained and socialized dog from chewing on him. I informed him that I neither carried a rifle in the vehicle, nor were there were any fish in the vehicle, and that it would be in his best health interests that he not touch the dog again. All of the other fish cops knew that and left me alone. The dog had so much disdain for the guy, that when I was being checked out on the ice, the dog came running from some distance away, came up behind the sob, cocked his leg and peed on his feltpacks. He never bothered me again!!!

About time for a happy ending Fish Cop story ! Ya they sure like to convict you on the spot then ask questions later. I put a thread up a few years ago about our experience from a last day Buck we got 100% legal and then convicted by this jerk and our deer taken away , called criminals, kept my camera etc. Only to prove him wrong that same night and he had to bring our deer back, and he was still a jerk...
However last Fall at Grande Cache on our rescue in a Helicopter a Female officer was incredibly good to us..Thanks for that Karen H.

[waterninja]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

What is a wildlife guardian??

I had one bad experience with a CO, real bad, and now I don't trust them very much as it seems they only ask you questions to try and develop an excuse to charge you with something. But that is just my one bad one, this fall the two we ran into were real sociable and not at all like that.

Now that is a very interesting observation. I seem to run into CO's at least once or twice a year, and I can honestly say that I have no complaints about the way I or my companions were treated. However...... in almost every encounter, the CO has asked a lot of questions that at the time (and now) did not make sense to me or pertained in any way to why we met in the first place. I think it is part of their training to ask strange or unrelated questions. One of the first rules in the regs is it is illegal to provide a false statement to a Fish and Wildlife officer. I have noticed that whenever there is a news story about people being arrested or charged under the Wildlife Act, Providing a false statement is almost always on the list.
Probably just establishing a baseline.

[sns2]

Originally Posted by waterninja

I am always amassed at how naive most people are. At the same time, most people never (or rarely) get stopped by authorities, or have to be questioned by them.
I think it's from watching all those US cop shows.

Kennedy asked an honest question. Why not just give an answer rather than talk about amazement at posters' naivete? Most people, including myself, have little interaction with cops. and wonder to what extent they can enter and/or search the vehicle.

So what is the answer?

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by Throttle_monkey1

The F&W officers I've dealt with are much more accusatory than any RCMP or EPS I've ever dealt with. Don't know what else to tell you. For me, there is a marked difference in professionalism.

Never had this experience with all law enforcement, some where a little more " aggressive" but hey all in a day's work, I shrug it off because you sit back and say even I have a moment of stupidity, if you don't then you are awesome....maybe...dealing with the public is just like shooting an arrow up in the air...ya never know what's going to happen next...one guy shakes your hand and the next one takes a swing at ya!

[Big Grey Wolf]

Guys you need to realize bad F&W officers get their day in court in front of a judge like the rest of us. If they go overboard and lay a bad charge the judge sets them on the right track. They learn quickly.

[silver lab]

Originally Posted by Big Grey Wolf

Guys you need to realize bad F&W officers get their day in court in front of a judge like the rest of us. If they go overboard and lay a bad charge the judge sets them on the right track. They learn quickly.

Bull! They go to court, get paid overtime and if it gets thrown out because the fish cop had a swolen head you think he gets in trouble? Lol the other officers just pat him on the back and say better luck next time.

[Throttle_monkey1]

Originally Posted by Big Grey Wolf

Guys you need to realize bad F&W officers get their day in court in front of a judge like the rest of us. If they go overboard and lay a bad charge the judge sets them on the right track. They learn quickly.

So the case gets thrown out and they could potentially get chastised by a judge a little bit. Meanwhile joe blow had to fork out thousands in legal fees to defend himself. Punishment by process.

The problem is that the wildlife act is regulatory law and the onus is on the accused since most charges are absolute liability or strict liability rather than mens rea cases found in criminal law.

If you unknowingly steal something you're not criminally liable for theft because there was no intent (mens rea). If you shot an animal at 4:38 pm and you didn't know the sunset 4:37 that day as it was later in the hunting season, tough luck.

[waterninja]

Originally Posted by sns2

Kennedy asked an honest question. Why not just give an answer rather than talk about amazement at posters' naivete? Most people, including myself, have little interaction with cops. and wonder to what extent they can enter and/or search the vehicle.

So what is the answer?

OK, Simple answer. They can do pretty much whatever the heck they want to. Anyone who thinks differently (including all the armchair lawyers) are just being silly or naive.

Don't misunderstand me, almost always they do what is reasonable and necessary for whatever situation they are dealing with, but if you want to be a smartass, or perhaps show them how much more you know about the law then they do, you will very quickly learn a real world lesson. Also, a person in authority can be having a bad day just like anyone else (no matter how much training they have). I find that simple polite answers and co-operation is a good rule of thumb.
If it all goes to chit, then you can spend the time and money to tell it to the judge.

[Joe Black]

And to follow up on the above. If you have a cell phone handy, turn on the recorder and let it run before anything is said or done.

Then to make it interesting, you can tell them you have done that. Wonder if things may go differently,,,,

[Wolftrapper]

As usual, with some of the attitudes displayed in this thread, Wildlife Officers and the courts will have no shortage of customers.
At least it keeps people employed I guess.

[artie]

I think they have a tough job and judging by some of the characters I have run into in the back country I think that since weapons are involved that there should be two officers out checking hunters. This might take some of the stress off of the officer knowing that he had backup while checking firearms.

[ex811]

[QUOTE=AB2506;3418701]You would be wrong. A F&W Officer has pretty much the same enforcement training as any police officer, and perhaps more than some. They also have to study more subjects such as biology, wildlife management, forestry, just to name a few. The competition to be selected is also fierce. One could argue that a F&W Officer is elite.

No. The topics you mentioned are good things to know and probably requirements for F&W officers, however they have Nothing to do with Policing.
Police officers can enforce Federal, Provincial, Municipal and even County legislations. F&W Peace officers really only enforce Provincial legislation. Their main focus is F&W matters and that is what they are truly 'elite' at doing. I agree with you on that case AB2506
They do not get the same training as 'any Police Officer' cause they are not Police officers and there really is no requirement.
Also, they do not have the same level of training that Police officers receive regarding dealing with either 'good guys or bad guys' as they do not interact with the public as frequently on as many matters as Police Officers.

Having said that, any Police/Peace Officer can be a POS cause they want to exercise their Powers of authority just cause they can. You don't have to be a Police/Peace officer to be a jerk.

F&W officers are good at enforcing F&W issues, and nearly every one I have come across are professional and pleasant to deal with.

Don't know what to say about the RCMP though...

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by super7mag

One told me once that the F&W have a saying " in god we trust, everyone else is guilty "!

Someone else said, in Canada we have felons and those not convicted yet.

Grizz

[grouse_hunter]

I've been stopped by F&W a couple of times. I haven't had a bad experience. Remember that you have no legal obligation to answer any of their questions. If requested you must present your licenses/PAL but that's it. I have a very good lawyer on retainer and simply hand the LEO his business card and instruct them to direct any questions towards my legal representative. That usually ends our interaction.
Remember, when they are asking questions, they are trying to trick you into incriminating yourself. Don't give them an inch...

[roger]

Originally Posted by super7mag

F&W have a saying " in god we trust, everyone else is guilty "!

Which means what?!?
That evidence isnt needed...just faith ?

[Joe Black]

I agree, but be prepared to get flamed by those that think FC's aren't accountable to rule of law, and that they can "pretty much do anything". (Kinda like the KJB)

Also understand that there are people out there that consider anybody who doesn't willingly give up their civil liberties is automatically a law breaker and guilty of something.

Thing is, if the FC 's do have absolute power as some suggest, you need to be an armchair lawyer, know your rights, and protect yourself as required.

Comes down to respect. Investigate and prosecute the criminals. Do your job, and do not harass hunters obeying the law( even though they are easier targets). fact is, even one FC that has an attitude that you are "guilty till proven innocent" is one to many, just like any other law enforcement agency. They are expected to conduct themselves to a higher standard.

[Travco1]

He can only search your vehicle with your permission. He cannot touch or handle your personal property without your permission. Unless he has probably cause. If you are hunting you have to show your license and I'd. You do not need to answer any questions.
The best answer to any of his questions if ignorant is. Why Are You Asking. Am I required by law to answer or do as you ask, against my will . If he says yes then he is breaking the code of conduct. You have no right to be abusive or swear at them.

Sent from my STV100-3 using Tapatalk

[Travco1]

If you are not hunting, then after the CO has been informed that you are not hunting. You can drive away.

Sent from my STV100-3 using Tapatalk

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Travco1

If you are not hunting, then after the CO has been informed that you are not hunting. You can drive away.

Sent from my STV100-3 using Tapatalk

So the officer is supposed to believe that you are not hunting because you told him so? As if people never lie to an officer.

And by the way, certain portions of the Wildlife Act apply whether you are hunting or not.

[RoosterCogburn]

Originally Posted by Travco1

He can only search your vehicle with your permission. He cannot touch or handle your personal property without your permission. Unless he has probably cause. If you are hunting you have to show your license and I'd. You do not need to answer any questions.
The best answer to any of his questions if ignorant is. Why Are You Asking. Am I required by law to answer or do as you ask, against my will . If he says yes then he is breaking the code of conduct. You have no right to be abusive or swear at them.

Sent from my STV100-3 using Tapatalk

would be a very poor FC if he can't come up with a probable cause

[Travco1]

Probable cause is not. because you are driving on a back road. Or you are wearing a camo jacket. Why do you think there first question 99% of the time is . What are you doing? Or are you hunting or anything along those lines.
If you are not hunting and inform the CO of that it's end of conversation. Unless you want to keep talking. That's really up to you. I personally don't mind shooting the sh@@ with a nice one.
Now if there is blood or hoof sticking out your tailgate you bet he has the right to check you out and so he should. That's there job

Sent from my STV100-3 using Tapatalk