Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Hunting Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 09-20-2018, 01:37 PM
Big Sky's Avatar
Big Sky Big Sky is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtodrick View Post
Because when you are driving the police can stop you for no reason:
http://svan.ca/police-rights/
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.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 09-20-2018, 01:51 PM
BlackHeart's Avatar
BlackHeart BlackHeart is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,999
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 09-20-2018, 01:52 PM
Big Sky's Avatar
Big Sky Big Sky is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,295
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 09-20-2018, 01:54 PM
Pikebreath Pikebreath is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck0039 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 09-20-2018, 01:54 PM
happy honker happy honker is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,685
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 09-20-2018, 02:23 PM
DJS DJS is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 689
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackHeart View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 09-20-2018, 02:33 PM
bobtodrick bobtodrick is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,939
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Sky View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 09-20-2018, 02:57 PM
Sledhead71 Sledhead71 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alberta
Posts: 3,650
Default

Moral of the story.

If you commit a wildlife infraction, make sure you don't commit a traffic infraction on the way home.

Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 09-20-2018, 03:00 PM
DJS DJS is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 689
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sledhead71 View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 09-20-2018, 04:18 PM
capper capper is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 279
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 09-20-2018, 04:31 PM
capper capper is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 279
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 09-20-2018, 07:13 PM
270person 270person is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,496
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by happy honker View Post

The first question was always something like "doing some hunting today?".
.


To which you should always reply, "No. I've been too busy drinking."
__________________
You matter. Unless you multiply yourself by the speed of light squared... ...then you energy.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 09-20-2018, 08:09 PM
igorot's Avatar
igorot igorot is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: calgary
Posts: 842
Default

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.”
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 09-20-2018, 08:28 PM
Talking moose's Avatar
Talking moose Talking moose is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: McBride/Prince George
Posts: 14,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by igorot View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 09-20-2018, 09:37 PM
Big Sky's Avatar
Big Sky Big Sky is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtodrick View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 09-20-2018, 10:18 PM
roper1 roper1 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Strathmore
Posts: 5,573
Default

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

You can, you should, & if you're brave enough to start, you will. Stephen King
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
hunter, lawyer, legal, rights

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.