Wildlife Officers Powers

[Penner]

Originally Posted by Sportsman

My advice to anyone pulled over by them is to immediately begin videotaping them and recording the conversation. You should even let them know you are recording the conversation. Everyone should read up and understand their charter rights and not let F&G walk all over them. They will twist questions and words to gain authority to search etc, they are trained to do this. Cooperate but say as little as possible, if they push the envelope which most of them do simply ask them if you are being investigated for something. If they say no, tell them you will be leaving and have a nice day.

Of course if you are hunting, show them your licenses etc and the properly tagged animal. You do not need to disclose where the animal was taken nor take an officer back to a gut pile. This has never happened to me but I do know a few guys that were asked to do this. Bottom line is their mandate in Alberta is all about enforcement and spend very little time on conservation like they should be. It’s actually quite sad how poorly run this group is compared to other jurisdictions in Canada and the USA.

Pizz poor advice. Doing what you describe would only being done by someone who does not respect authority and or whom has something to hide. Brutal.

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by Sportsman

If you don’t know after reading 3 pages on this thread then you will never know.

There is a couple cases where I would think they over stepped
Most are 3rd hand
I see there a lot of people think your advice is terrible though

[Joe Black]

the supreme court of Canada has found that vehicle(and im sure personal/bag/cooler/tent searches) in Alberta by CO/FW, without probable cause, are unconstitutional.

the supreme court of Canada has found that random stops in Alberta by CO/FW, without probable cause, are unconstitutional.

that is what this case was about. that is fact.

not sure why so may think that all other tactics/actions by CO/FW are automatically legitimate, just not this one. if it walks and talks like a duck,,,,,

and when it comes to respect, why don't some of these public servants (FW/CO) respect all the laws, not just the ones they want to.

just saying.

[Sportsman]

Originally Posted by Penner

Pizz poor advice. Doing what you describe would only being done by someone who does not respect authority and or whom has something to hide. Brutal.

That’s your analysis? So you think it’s okay to let them infringe on your rights? There’s nothing wrong with recording these interactions. Why do you think vehicles have cameras in them now? It’s to determine what actually happened, it’s the world we live in. It is widely known that Alberta F&G frequently overreaches and there are numerous examples of it.

[Gilly87]

im curious as well to know the power they have as I believe a lot of searches are illegal.

[Donkey Oatey]

Originally Posted by Gilly87

im curious as well to know the power they have as I believe a lot of searches are illegal.

From the Wildlife Act.

Status as peace officer

65(1) A wildlife officer or wildlife guardian, in executing the duties and functions and exercising the powers of that office, is a person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a wildlife guardian shall not exercise the powers of arrest given to a peace officer by section 495 of the Criminal Code (Canada) as adopted by the Provincial Offences Procedure Act.

(3) Wildlife officers and wildlife guardians

(a) are the persons with the primary responsibility of enforcing this Act, and

(b) without limiting their other powers, have all powers that are required for, that are incidental to or that form part of

(i) the performance of their duties, whether or not those duties are specifically referred to in this Act, or

(ii) any enforcement, investigation, administration or process under or relating to this Act or any directions, requirements, orders or prosecution or other legal proceeding under or relating to this Act.

RSA 2000 cW‑10 s65;2002 c30 s33

Entry on and the passing over of land

66(1) A wildlife officer or wildlife guardian may, without a warrant, enter on and pass over any land while lawfully engaged in the exercise of powers or the performance of duties or functions given him or her by, or that otherwise relate to the enforcement of, this Act, including those implied by section 65.

(2) Subsection (1) does not in itself authorize the entry into any tent, building or other structure or any search or seizure.

(3) The officer or guardian, while lawfully engaged in the entry on or the passing over of the land in accordance with subsection (1), is liable only for damage that he or she wilfully causes.

RSA 2000 cW‑10 s66;2002 c30 s33;2009 c36 s4

Power to stop and order movement of vehicles, etc. and animals

67(1) A wildlife officer, while lawfully engaged in the exercise of powers or the performance of duties or functions referred to in section 66(1), may signal or otherwise order

(a) a person operating a vehicle, aircraft or boat or riding or leading a pack‑animal to stop it forthwith or to move it to a particular place and then stop it, or

(b) a person carrying a pack to stop,

and that person shall forthwith comply with that signal or order and shall not proceed until the end of any period of time that is reasonably necessary to enable the officer to conduct any lawful inquiries.

(2) This section does not apply with respect to an aircraft that is in flight.

RSA 2000 cW‑10 s67;2002 c30 s33;2009 c36 s5

Power to demand licence, permit, etc.

68(1) Where a wildlife officer or wildlife guardian believes that a person is or has been hunting wildlife, the officer or guardian may require that person to produce

(a) any licence authorizing the person to hunt that wildlife, or

(b) if the person is a person referred to in section 26(2), the instrument referred to in that subsection.

(2) Where an officer or guardian believes that a person may have engaged in an activity for which a permit is required, the officer or guardian may require that person to produce the permit authorizing the person to engage in that activity.

(3) Where an officer or guardian believes that a person is transporting wildlife in a vehicle, aircraft or boat, the officer or guardian may require that person to produce the documents referred to in section 57.

(4) When an officer or guardian requires a person to produce anything under this section, that person shall forthwith produce it to the officer or guardian.

RSA 2000 cW‑10 s68;2002 c30 s33

Inspection of subject animals

69(1) In this section,

(a) “structure” means a building, tent or other structure that is not a private dwelling;

(b) “transport” means a vehicle, aircraft, boat, pack‑animal or pack.

(2) A wildlife officer or wildlife guardian may require the operator or person in possession of any transport or the owner or occupant of a structure to produce all subject animals in or on the transport or structure, as the case may be, for the purpose of inspection to determine the sex, species and size of the animals or to ascertain whether disease or parasites are present in or on the animals or whether the animals are lawfully possessed or, if dead, tagged, if

(a) any subject animal in or on the transport or structure is in plain view of the officer or guardian, or

(b) the officer or guardian has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that there is a subject animal in or on it.

(3) An officer or guardian may require the operator or person in possession of any transport or the owner or occupant of a structure to produce all endangered organisms in or on it for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are lawfully possessed, if

(a) any endangered organism in or on it is in plain view of the officer or guardian, or

(b) the officer or guardian has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that endangered organisms are present there.

(4) When an officer or guardian requires a person to produce subject animals or endangered organisms under subsection (2) or (3), that person shall forthwith produce to the officer or guardian all subject animals or endangered organisms, as the case may be, in or on the applicable transport or structure.

RSA 2000 cW‑10 s69;2002 c30 s33

Inspection of weapons, ammunition and projectiles

70(1) If a weapon, ammunition or projectile or any part of it

(a) is in or on a vehicle, aircraft or boat or is being transported on an animal or by a person who is on foot, and

(b) is in plain view of a wildlife officer or wildlife guardian,

the officer or guardian may require the person who is or who appears to be in possession of that weapon or other thing to produce it for the purpose of inspection to determine whether it is there in circumstances constituting a danger to public safety or whether or not it is possessed in accordance with this Act.

(2) When an officer or guardian requires a person to produce anything for inspection under subsection (1), that person shall forthwith produce it to the officer or guardian.

RSA 2000 cW‑10 s70;2002 c30 s33

Search, etc., without warrant

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.

(1.1) A wildlife officer or wildlife guardian who has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the lawful exercise of any powers or the lawful performance of any duties or functions referred to in section 66(1) necessitates the examination or inspection of anything or any location referred to in subsection (1)(a), (a.1) or (b) or of any subject animal or other property may, without a warrant, perform that examination or inspection, as the case may be.

(2) The officer or guardian shall not enter into or search the living quarters of a private dwelling under this section unless the officer or guardian is in immediate pursuit of a person who the officer or guardian has reasonable and probable grounds to believe has committed an offence against this Act.

(3) The power to conduct a search, examination or inspection under this section must

(a) be exercised at a reasonable hour having regard to the circumstances underlying the reasonably perceived need for the search, examination or inspection, and

(b) be exercised in accordance with the prescribed restrictions.

RSA 2000 cW‑10 s71;2002 c30 s33;2009 c36 s6

Inspection of permit and other premises

72(1) A wildlife officer or wildlife guardian may, without obtaining a warrant, enter at any reasonable hour

(a) any premises that the officer or guardian has reason to believe are permit premises, or

(b) any other premises where

(i) any authority is required by or under another statute, including a federal statute, to possess any subject animals or endangered organisms, or

(ii) a commercial service in relation to butchering, skinning, dressing or plucking dead subject animals is offered,

and where the officer or guardian has reason to believe that subject animals or endangered organisms may be found at the time of entry, other than the living quarters of a private dwelling, for the purpose of inspecting the premises and any subject animals and endangered organisms found in them and any records required to be kept by or under this Act or the Fur Farms Act.

(2) If it appears to a justice, on information laid before the justice on oath, that there are reasonable and probable grounds for believing that the living quarters of a private dwelling contain any premises referred to in subsection (1), the justice may issue a warrant authorizing an officer or guardian to enter those quarters, by force if necessary, for the purpose of inspecting the quarters and any subject animals and endangered organisms found in them and any records referred to in subsection (1).

(3) Before entering the living quarters under subsection (2), an officer or guardian shall take reasonable steps to find the person in possession of them and shall endeavour to obtain the consent of that person.

(4) A permit holder or other person in charge of the premises referred to in this section shall, for the purpose of an inspection under this section, give all reasonable assistance to the officer or guardian carrying out the inspection and provide access to all relevant areas of the premises and provide all information, records and copies required to be kept by or under this Act and all other records referred to in subsection (1).

RSA 2000 cW‑10 s72;2002 c30 s33;2003 c49 s14;2011 c12 s32(21)

Production of identification

73 In the exercise of a wildlife officer’s or wildlife guardian’s powers and duties under this Act, an officer who is not in uniform or a guardian shall produce the officer’s or guardian’s badge or certification of the officer’s or guardian’s appointment on being requested to do so.

RSA 2000 cW‑10 s73;2002 c30 s33

Powers of seizure

74(1) A wildlife officer or wildlife guardian may seize anything that the officer or guardian believes on reasonable and probable grounds may afford evidence of, or was used in, the commission of an offence against this Act.

(2) The officer or guardian shall, on seizing anything under subsection (1), give a receipt for it to the person, if any, having physical possession of it when it was seized.

[Joe Black]

yah,

pretty easy to cut and paste.

here's mine(again)


https://www.advocatedaily.com/greg-d...zure-dunn.html

"The Crown recognized in the case brought by Dunn that stopping and searching a person must only be done if officers have reasonable suspicion. What would that entail in the context of a wildlife investigation?

“Well, maybe if you have a hoof sticking out of your trunk, or you’re dressed in camo gear and there’s blood running down your truck,” Dunn says. “There must be some indication you’ve hunted, and you’re not just driving in the area.”

In urban terms, that’s in line with Charter protections against being stopped for drug investigation just because you’re driving in an area known for drugs, he says."

[Joe Black]

Originally Posted by Gilly87

im curious as well to know the power they have as I believe a lot of searches are illegal.

and according to the ruling above, they probably are.

[Donkey Oatey]

Originally Posted by Joe Black

and according to the ruling above, they probably are.

Its not a ruling its a news article.

Yes random stops are unconstitutional and in the case of the guy that was caught breaking the law, the crown didn't press the charges due to possibility of losing the case due to a charter challenge.

F&W still have broad powers for stop and search. Just need a bit more reasonable doubt than just a vehicle driving in a place frequented by hunters.

[Joe Black]

apologies. not a ruling.

the crown did drop the charges because they knew the CO/FW did an illegal stop/search. they also chose to drop it because they would rather sweep it under the carpet than have the judgement against them entered into case law.

this is something(illegal stop and search by FW/CO) that occurs all to often according to many of the comments.

My, very simple question is, why are they doing it, and why do their supervisors allow them to do it, after a case like this? tells me they will continue to throw as much as they can on the wall and see what sticks.

why should citizens have to put up with this kind of harassment?

now maybe they are doing less of it. who knows. i do know, personally, if asked, in the future, to search my vehicle, tent, bag i will be asking what their probable cause is.

the random stopping, whatever(even though that is also in question according to charter rights) show them your gun, show them your license, and be on your way. that'll be my settle.

[Full Curl Earl]

Anyone ever met a guardian before? Or is this really old? I have met volunteer Guardians at remote lake areas but they certainly dont perform any enforcement duties.

[Donkey Oatey]

Originally Posted by Full Curl Earl

Anyone ever met a guardian before? Or is this really old? I have met volunteer Guardians at remote lake areas but they certainly dont perform any enforcement duties.

Wildlife Guardian is a designation not a job title. Most bio's and summer staff are designated as Guardians and not given full Officer powers. This includes the summer Park Rangers/CO's.

[wildwoods]

I understand what the F&W LEO's are doing. I respect their positions and lack of funding. HOWEVER
The reason random searches are banned via our constitutional rights is to avoid Gestapo Nazi Germany from ever happening again in any capacity. It goes much deeper than a simple licence check.
That said, there are 2 random searches I don't mind if they are limited to:
Check stops for drunk drivers
and
F&W checks.

It's a very slippery slope though!

[Penner]

Originally Posted by Sportsman

That’s your analysis? So you think it’s okay to let them infringe on your rights? There’s nothing wrong with recording these interactions. Why do you think vehicles have cameras in them now? It’s to determine what actually happened, it’s the world we live in. It is widely known that Alberta F&G frequently overreaches and there are numerous examples of it.

Agree (unfortunately) it's the world we live in today, viewpoints suggest are yours are not helping to change it that's for certain. But your are entitled to your viewpoint.

My viewpoint is that every action has a reaction, an immediate "defensive posture" such as being hesitant to respond to questioning or recording the engagement immediately I will guarantee will provoke adverse reaction from the investigating officer whether it be a CO or other authority. It only suggests suspicion and zero good will ever result from such an approach.

What happened to just having a human conversation with the investigating officer and let them do the very difficult job they have to do? If you feel at some point during the interaction that "your feelings get hurt or your rights are infringed" whip out the cell phone and start recording if you feel that will be a crutch (FYI in Canada, you must disclose you are recording for it to be admissible, and that the recording can also be equally used against you).

For the hundreds of F&W interactions I have had I have never experienced anything but positive/friendly experiences and at no time have I ever felt my constitutional rights were being infringed upon. I follow the law so I have no reason to be concerned or paranoid. Perhaps you walk a finer line with the law than I.

I don't doubt that there are exceptions to the above, after all CO's are people, and people do make mistakes. But their job is to enforce the law and to help protect the public. Hardly a reason to assume every interaction with an authority justifies the approach such as what you have suggested.

[leeelmer]

So lets say you are just heading out west to do a weekend of camping.
Round the corner, and low and behold there is a Fish and Wildlife checkstop.
They stop you
They ask if you are hunting?
YOu say No.
They ask if there are any firearms in the vehicle?
You say yes.
They say they want to see them.
You say no
They search anyways.
THey charge you with unsafe storage of a firearm as it has not trigger lock.
No they are not in the right, the stop was illegal and you did nothing wrong, but now you have to prove you did nothing wrong to a judge, time off work, lawyer and such.
No costs paid back by the crown, all from a illegal stop and search.
But you guys would all be fine with this???
The point is that they cannot just stop you on a whim, they must have cause, just because you have not been charged does not mean other have not been.
The point is that it is against the charter, and none of us should have to prove ourselves in court because of a illiagal search.

[NinjaHunter]

Originally Posted by Penner

I don't doubt that there are exceptions to the above, after all CO's are people, and people do make mistakes. But their job is to enforce the law and to help protect the public. Hardly a reason to assume every interaction with an authority justifies the approach such as what you have suggested.

And I wonder how much is the cost of COs making a mistake? Hundreds of thousands of dollars? Loss of income for the individual? Loss of good reputation? Undue emotional hardships?

CO mistakes aren't just "mistakes". Those mistakes cost alot of money, time, and undue hardships to clear up.

My advice, know your constitutional rights and regulations. And know, that as a canadian citizen, have a right to say "no" to public servants. Cause as far as I know, this country isn't 1930s-1940s Nazi Germany, nor is it the USSR.

[Sportsman]

Originally Posted by Penner

Agree (unfortunately) it's the world we live in today, viewpoints suggest are yours are not helping to change it that's for certain. But your are entitled to your viewpoint.

My viewpoint is that every action has a reaction, an immediate "defensive posture" such as being hesitant to respond to questioning or recording the engagement immediately I will guarantee will provoke adverse reaction from the investigating officer whether it be a CO or other authority. It only suggests suspicion and zero good will ever result from such an approach.

What happened to just having a human conversation with the investigating officer and let them do the very difficult job they have to do? If you feel at some point during the interaction that "your feelings get hurt or your rights are infringed" whip out the cell phone and start recording if you feel that will be a crutch (FYI in Canada, you must disclose you are recording for it to be admissible, and that the recording can also be equally used against you).

For the hundreds of F&W interactions I have had I have never experienced anything but positive/friendly experiences and at no time have I ever felt my constitutional rights were being infringed upon. I follow the law so I have no reason to be concerned or paranoid. Perhaps you walk a finer line with the law than I.

I don't doubt that there are exceptions to the above, after all CO's are people, and people do make mistakes. But their job is to enforce the law and to help protect the public. Hardly a reason to assume every interaction with an authority justifies the approach such as what you have suggested.

Let’s agree to disagree but your statement on consent to record is totally inaccurate. In Canada only one party needs to consent to the conversation being recorded. Google “one party consent”. I don’t walk a fine, I’m just not a sheep that will allow anyone to walk on my rights. I also disagree that their job is difficult, that’s almost funny! What’s so difficult about it?

You are right that their job is to enforce the law.....one would think that they should also follow it?

[skidderman]

I am a little perplexed as to why so many say it's a difficult job. It's a job, period. If they see someone break the law they react. If not, next. They are no different than any other officer position and I don't believe any more or any less difficult.

[EZM]

I have had excellent experiences with F&W in Saskatchewan, every single interaction was polite, friendly and often ended up in a chat and I learn a few things about the area, good spots, etc... from those guys. Never a bad experience.

In Alberta, most of the time it's all good - 95% of the time - BUT it's been "more business like" but I'm always cool, cooperative and non-confrontational although I notice many officers tend to ask "leading questions" ..... I have nothing to hide, and I answer the question, but it bothers me somewhat. I am not a law breaker, nor do I appreciate being (or feeling) like I'm being questioned. It bothers me.

Here's the 5% bad .... In Alberta, in this area, there is an individual who I've run into twice, and have had friends/other members on this forum who have also run into this individual, and he gives F&W people a bad name. He is what many contributors here described. My wife, who loves everyone, doesn't even like this guy. She forgave the devil once, but this guy is on her naughty list - she doesn't like him.

He's definitely on a power trip, definitely over reaching and frankly quite rude and condescending. He is an angry person, who probably has a lousy life outside of work, and when he puts on his badge he becomes "the guy in control" ..... so more power to him. Again, I have never broken the law, have no reason to be treated like that, and I don't appreciate the attitude of being treated and questioned like a criminal.

The good news is, this is one bad apple. Bad news is, I can relate to how some people feel.

I support the jobs they do, and appreciate them protecting our resources, and I hope the powers that be in senior leadership in F&W clean these guys out and maybe have some guys take a course on how to deal with law abiding citizens and good people like most of us are.

[KegRiver]

Do bad officer exist, For sure, in every force and deopartment.

Have I ever met one, sure have.

One, just one in 65 years of living in this Province.
On the other hand I have met more bad mechanics then I can count. I won't even get in to how many bad actor politicians there are.

My point? Well it's simple. I don't walk around holding a lightning rod and I don't go around pointing cameras at those who are there to serve and protect.

All this reminds me a lot of the debate over which gun one needs for protection from Bears.

I have a trail camera on a tree about 100 yards from my back door.
That camera took over one hundred pictures of Bears over the summer this year alone.
Now that doesn't mean I had 100 Bears in my back yard, it only means that a few come around rather frequently.
Yet in the twelve years we've lived here I have only felt it necessary to deactivate one Bear in this yard.

I see the issue of law enforcement personnel overstepping their authority about the same way with one huge exception. I doubt very much that any of the thousands of people registered on this site will ever be deliberately injured by a LEO or CO. The worst that might happen is you might loose your freedom for a while.
I can not say that about the Bears that come through my yard.

Some day I might run across one of those bad actor officers. Until that happens I will not carry a camera to use against them and I will co-operate fully with every one of them.

If others wish to carry protection against Bears or Peace Officers let them. That is their cross to bear if it comes back and bites them.

No I am not saying that officers or bears will take revenge. Not at all, but you will loose a lot of enjoyment from your outings worrying about that which will probably never happen.

[Reinchampion]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

Am I the only one that doesn’t have problems with f&w?
They have a job to do. They are underfunded. And they are usually pulling people over who are armed.
They have been nothing but fantastic in my area
I have a couple of their phone numbers and I text them all the time when I see suspicious activity. I’m tired of having bullets rip past me when I’m in a tree stand or blind. Tired of finding poached moose and deer. Tired of the bs.

Ditto! They are doing a fantastic job! Don't be so defensive. They pull you over and ask questions. That's how they protect our wildlife and fisheries.

[Kale_M]

Originally Posted by Full Curl Earl

Get mouthy? So you believe its the customers fault, the hunter?
I have been pulled up on, never had time to say a word, driving to our spot, and told, “ step out of the vehicle, dont touch those guns”. Thats not how you deal with people. That instigates a confrontation. I dont have a right to come to work and take my lousy life out on my co-workers, and LEO wearing sidearms certainty dont either. They are expected to be professionals, cool headed, its the job. A revamping of the college and recruitment process would go a long way in changing the poor attitudes towards the public we see with some LEO and F&W members in general.
But hey, you can “carry on” with giving away your rights if you wish.
Im no hater, but i no longer offer up anything more than i am required to legally.

They are law enforcement. Any other law enforcement officer that pulled you over and you had a gun sitting next to you, you would have a pistol in your face and be told to exit the car and onto the pavement. Things are getting dicey out there. All that Fw officer is doing is ensuring everybody is safe. He does not know you or your intentions. Especially with all the rural crime lately and violence.

He is doing his job. If you have nothing to hide then there is no problem.

I was stopped once while out coyote hunting. Asked me to step out. Asked to see my gun, no worries it was all good. Chatted for a bit and he even pointed me in the direction of some public land that he sees coyotes on all the time. And I was on my way. Not sure why everyone gets their backs up all the time for nothing.

[Penner]

Originally Posted by Sportsman

Let’s agree to disagree but your statement on consent to record is totally inaccurate. In Canada only one party needs to consent to the conversation being recorded. Google “one party consent”. I don’t walk a fine, I’m just not a sheep that will allow anyone to walk on my rights. I also disagree that their job is difficult, that’s almost funny! What’s so difficult about it?

You are right that their job is to enforce the law.....one would think that they should also follow it?

Never said anything about consent. I said "you must disclose you are recording for it to be admissible" meaning you must inform the other person(s) that your are recording (video/voice) in order for it to be used in a court of law. If you don't it could be considered entrapment among other things.

Good luck with your video shooting.

[Penner]

Originally Posted by leeelmer

So lets say you are just heading out west to do a weekend of camping.
Round the corner, and low and behold there is a Fish and Wildlife checkstop.
They stop you
They ask if you are hunting?
YOu say No.
They ask if there are any firearms in the vehicle?
You say yes.
They say they want to see them.
You say no
They search anyways.
THey charge you with unsafe storage of a firearm as it has not trigger lock.
No they are not in the right, the stop was illegal and you did nothing wrong, but now you have to prove you did nothing wrong to a judge, time off work, lawyer and such.
No costs paid back by the crown, all from a illegal stop and search.
But you guys would all be fine with this???
The point is that they cannot just stop you on a whim, they must have cause, just because you have not been charged does not mean other have not been.
The point is that it is against the charter, and none of us should have to prove ourselves in court because of a illiagal search.

First world problems eh? Keep firearms unloaded and remove bolt or use a trigger lock, problem solved. Your welcome.

[Penner]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Do bad officer exist, For sure, in every force and deopartment.

Have I ever met one, sure have.

One, just one in 65 years of living in this Province.
On the other hand I have met more bad mechanics then I can count. I won't even get in to how many bad actor politicians there are.

My point? Well it's simple. I don't walk around holding a lightning rod and I don't go around pointing cameras at those who are there to serve and protect.

All this reminds me a lot of the debate over which gun one needs for protection from Bears.

I have a trail camera on a tree about 100 yards from my back door.
That camera took over one hundred pictures of Bears over the summer this year alone.
Now that doesn't mean I had 100 Bears in my back yard, it only means that a few come around rather frequently.
Yet in the twelve years we've lived here I have only felt it necessary to deactivate one Bear in this yard.

I see the issue of law enforcement personnel overstepping their authority about the same way with one huge exception. I doubt very much that any of the thousands of people registered on this site will ever be deliberately injured by a LEO or CO. The worst that might happen is you might loose your freedom for a while.
I can not say that about the Bears that come through my yard.

Some day I might run across one of those bad actor officers. Until that happens I will not carry a camera to use against them and I will co-operate fully with every one of them.

If others wish to carry protection against Bears or Peace Officers let them. That is their cross to bear if it comes back and bites them.

No I am not saying that officers or bears will take revenge. Not at all, but you will loose a lot of enjoyment from your outings worrying about that which will probably never happen.

Well said.

Originally Posted by Reinchampion

Ditto! They are doing a fantastic job! Don't be so defensive. They pull you over and ask questions. That's how they protect our wildlife and fisheries.

100% agree and I might add public safety as well.

[liar]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

Am I the only one that doesn’t have problems with f&w?
They have a job to do. They are underfunded. And they are usually pulling people over who are armed.
They have been nothing but fantastic in my area
I have a couple of their phone numbers and I text them all the time when I see suspicious activity. I’m tired of having bullets rip past me when I’m in a tree stand or blind. Tired of finding poached moose and deer. Tired of the bs.

X2

[Jays toyz]

Originally Posted by Reinchampion

Ditto! They are doing a fantastic job! Don't be so defensive. They pull you over and ask questions. That's how they protect our wildlife and fisheries.

I wish it were that way. Their mandate is to "lay paper". I feel the protection of the resources is what they hope will result if enough paper is laid.

[Albertacoyotecaller]

Originally Posted by cowmanbob

A co stopped the neighbors wife three days in a row in a car while driving to work in her uniform. Not sure what this would accomplish, but he got transferred to Brooks sometime after this.

That officer was the biggest POS around this part of the world. He’s probably the biggest down south as well.

[Sportsman]

Originally Posted by Penner

Never said anything about consent. I said "you must disclose you are recording for it to be admissible" meaning you must inform the other person(s) that your are recording (video/voice) in order for it to be used in a court of law. If you don't it could be considered entrapment among other things.

Good luck with your video shooting.

Nope, that’s fake news dude!

[wildwoods]

Originally Posted by Penner

Never said anything about consent. I said "you must disclose you are recording for it to be admissible" meaning you must inform the other person(s) that your are recording (video/voice) in order for it to be used in a court of law. If you don't it could be considered entrapment among other things.

Good luck with your video shooting.

Wrong.

Only one person needs to know in Canada. Remember Jody Wilson Raybould?