Manning, POACHING MF

[ram crazy]

Originally Posted by pickrel pat

your guessing I take it?......

Nope no guessing here

[Mikezilk]

Originally Posted by ram crazy

Maybe the heading should have read Manning Trespasser MF instead. Wikipedia doesn't say anything about trespassing as being apart of poaching.

lol... give me 30 secs and I can edit it on wikipedia to say that...lol

Regardless...

Dudes were tresspassing thus hunting illegally...

Next time jack em of the deer...lol

[Jimboy]

Originally Posted by Mikezilk

actually jimboy....

Poaching is taking any animal is such a way as if violates the wildlife act..

so anything done that breaks ANY rule in the regulations is poaching

Nope , trespassing is under the land petty trespassing act , not the wildlife act , so not a poacher , but a trespasser.

[Mikezilk]

Originally Posted by Jimboy

Nope , trespassing is under the land petty trespassing act , not the wildlife act , so not a poacher , but a trespasser.

lol... still a couple of real idiots which I am sure we can all agree on!

[Jimboy]

Originally Posted by Mikezilk

lol... still a couple of real idiots which I am sure we can all agree on!

And your just another name caller when we dont agree with your way of thinking , l just finished reading the petty trespass act , and nothing is mentioned in it about shooting a deer or picking up a beer can , its just trespassing and that is all , and you are subject to a fine not exceding $2000 dollars , l,m just stating the facts here , l myself do not trespass , as you may think , also your deer can not be confiscated if you have it tagged ,and have the appropiate lic for that zone , you should educate yourself a little more about it before you call people names also.

[elkhunter11]

Nope , trespassing is under the land petty trespassing act , not the wildlife act , so not a poacher , but a trespasser.

But the legislation concerning occupied land appears in the wildlife act. So if the violation occurs on occupied land,as appears to be the case in this instance, the accused could be charged under the wildlife act.

[huntin]

Originally Posted by Jimboy

And your just another name caller when we dont agree with your way of thinking , l just finished reading the petty trespass act , and nothing is mentioned in it about shooting a deer or picking up a beer can , its just trespassing and that is all , and you are subject to a fine not exceding $2000 dollars , l,m just stating the facts here , l myself do not trespass , as you may think , also your deer can not be confiscated if you have it tagged ,and have the appropiate lic for that zone , you should educate yourself a little more about it before you call people names also.

you man should pick up an alberta game warden mag. and read how many people have been charged with trasspassing and had their deer confiscated. and fined.

[Mikezilk]

Originally Posted by Jimboy

And your just another name caller when we dont agree with your way of thinking , l just finished reading the petty trespass act , and nothing is mentioned in it about shooting a deer or picking up a beer can , its just trespassing and that is all , and you are subject to a fine not exceding $2000 dollars , l,m just stating the facts here , l myself do not trespass , as you may think , also your deer can not be confiscated if you have it tagged ,and have the appropiate lic for that zone , you should educate yourself a little more about it before you call people names also.

WHAT???

Where did I ever say anything about deer being confiscated?

I was calling the guys in the truck that trespassed idiots..

Best you read all the posts before you start on someone

GENERAL PROHIBITIONS

It is unlawful to
13) hunt any wildlife or discharge any firearm on or over occupied land or enter on to such land for the purpose of doing so without the consent of the owner or occupant of the land.

HUNTING PRIVILEGES ON OCCUPIED, PRIVATE AND PUBLIC LAND

Although there is a moral obligation to pursue wounded game and a legal requirement to ensure game is retrieved and not wasted or abandoned, these obligations do not override the legal requirement to get permission to enter private land.

Wildlife Act
Section 38 of the Wildlife Act specifies that no person shall hunt wildlife or discharge firearms on or over occupied lands, or enter onto such lands for the purpose of doing so without the consent of the owner or occupant.

The Wildlife Act defines "occupied lands" as follows:

privately owned lands under cultivation or enclosed by a fence of any kind and not exceeding one section in area on which the owner or occupant actually resides, and
any other privately owned land that is within 1.6 km (1 mi.) of the section referred to in clause (a) and that is owned or leased by the same owner or occupant.
The occupied lands described in the above legislation do not need to be posted with signs to receive protection under Section 38 of the Wildlife Act.

Sure reads to me that trespassing to get your deer is an offence against the wildlife act..


Therefore could be deemed as poaching if F&W wanted!

[Houndogn]

i can't beleive how this all turns into a complete and utter bunch of bs, arguing over word deffinitions , oh i'd imagine my spelling will be next, the *******es shot a deer a couple hundred yards from my house, drove in my field to get it. Poor misguided souls, maybe shoulda went and helped them ??? good grief so many on here just want to fight and argue....cripes life has enough bs without fightin over what a word means to one or the other........so high school, no wait kindergarden ! Makes me tired sheesh...

[HunterDave]

Did you ever hear back from F&W about this? They can/will take DNA samples from the gutpile to compare with the deer that they have hanging if they go to the residence that the trucks license number is registered to.

[ram crazy]

Originally Posted by Jimboy

Nope , trespassing is under the land petty trespassing act , not the wildlife act , so not a poacher , but a trespasser.

2x.... Thus my whole point!!!!!

[elkhunter11]

2x.... Thus my whole point!!!!!

From the OP's previous post:

Yes it is occuppied land.

The fact that it is occupied land means that charges can be laid under the Wildlife Act, it isn't simple Petty Trespass.

Someone I knew, shot a deer around chain lakes quite a few years back. They were gutting the deer and the farmer came out and caught them on his posted land. They weren't poaching, they were trespassing and received a summons and a court date. $150.00 fine..........

[pickrel pat]

Originally Posted by BBBB

Someone I knew, shot a deer around chain lakes quite a few years back. They were gutting the deer and the farmer came out and caught them on his posted land. They weren't poaching, they were trespassing and received a summons and a court date. $150.00 fine..........

guess that settles it then.....

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by BBBB

Someone I knew, shot a deer around chain lakes quite a few years back. They were gutting the deer and the farmer came out and caught them on his posted land. They weren't poaching, they were trespassing and received a summons and a court date. $150.00 fine..........

I know someone that received a +$280 fine 2 years ago for recovering a deer from someone else's property. He was ticketed by F&W for trespassing and had the option of paying the ticket or going to court to fight it, similar to a traffic ticket. He was allowed to keep the deer and he received no other penalties.

I believe that I remember reading somewhere that there was a change to the Petty Trespass Act this year to include stiffer penalties when it applies to hunting situations but I'd have to research it.

Originally Posted by HunterDave

I know someone that received a +$280 fine 2 years ago for recovering a deer from someone else's property. He was ticketed by F&W for trespassing and had the option of paying the ticket or going to court to fight it, similar to a traffic ticket. He was allowed to keep the deer and he received no other penalties.

I believe that I remember reading somewhere that there was a change to the Petty Trespass Act this year to include stiffer penalties when it applies to hunting situations but I'd have to research it.

No doubt the fines have been increased over the years....this story happened in the 80's. The CO never was on site and it was the word of the land owner alone.....a license plate helped. I told my buddy that he could have just eaten beef that night...

Originally Posted by Houndogn

i can't beleive how this all turns into a complete and utter bunch of bs, arguing over word deffinitions , oh i'd imagine my spelling will be next, the *******es shot a deer a couple hundred yards from my house, drove in my field to get it. Poor misguided souls, maybe shoulda went and helped them ??? good grief so many on here just want to fight and argue....cripes life has enough bs without fightin over what a word means to one or the other........so high school, no wait kindergarden ! Makes me tired sheesh...

I see it just gets better and better

[GoodTimes]

What a ridiculous circus of a thread lol. Youre all crazy

[Jimboy]

Originally Posted by GoodTimes

What a ridiculous circus of a thread lol. Youre all crazy

Actually its not a ridiculous thread at all . we all learned something here ,specialy new hunters and a few veterans l may add , was a good argument , all cases are different , sometimes deer are conviscated with a trespassing charge , but most likly they do it because of no lic or wrong tag for that zone , seen that happen before , or if caught shooting from a vehicle , thats another reason , nope good thread.

[GoodTimes]

Originally Posted by Jimboy

Actually its not a ridiculous thread at all . nope good thread.

I respectfully disagree lol

[GoodTimes]

AND...... its not a "thread". I looked up "thread" on Wikipedia and it says nothing about a bunch of yahoos arguing on the internet.

[Mikezilk]

Originally Posted by GoodTimes

AND...... its not a "thread". I looked up "thread" on Wikipedia and it says nothing about a bunch of yahoos arguing on the internet.

HAHA awesome... Check Circus maybe... or Boredom... or Waiting for work to be done so I can hunt

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Houndogn

Hmm the reason i haven't commented, well first of all, most of these comments aren't worth replying too. And no i'm not HWF, and yes the pics have gone to the right person not this forum. Yes it is occuppied land. And no it wasn't the black dually, if fact i haven't seen them this year, and they tell me they only hunt on the their own land ( full of crap they are). Maybe they have a different truck this year, LOL. The reason for the post was to let them know that i know and to expect to have miserable day real soon. In my view it is poaching, whether that is the legal deffinition or not, i don't know or care. What they did was illegal and no one came to my door to ask permission for anything. I don't lock gates because my land is not fenced, get a county map and stay the hell off of land you don't have permission on ! It is not up to me to fence them out, it is privately owned land, and it their obligation to stay out or ask. On that note i will let all go back to calling me a liar and fighting over what is poaching. Sometimes this forum is so much BS......Have a good day hunting, thats what i am going to do !

Not slamming landowners or the OP here but you can't always expect everyone to magically just know where boundaries begin and end.
The case here seems pretty clear cut because of the house being so near by.

But in general...

When folks rely on the argument that they don't have to post or fence their land... that is well and fine but when you do... you will no doubt have more difficulties than someone that does post and fence their land... and more anger and conflict as a result.

I understand the OP being upset... especially if the event occurred within sight of his home or something like that but... he could probably avoid a degree of future conflict by at least posting the property line... even if he doesn't legally have to.

My thought is...good luck getting anything to stick if your land is not posted, gated or even fenced.
Without some sort of physical indication of where the property starts or stops or an indication that you don't want your animals to wander or people to enter into land because it is owned... it might be very tough to win.

It may be too easy to argue that they thought they were still outside of your property line... didn't see a house or that they simply had no way of reasonably knowing they were on your land or committing a crime.
If it is a neighbour he might even claim that someone moved the peg so the land is actually his... it happens...

County landowner map or not... even with a GPS to help out... there can be huge discrepancies between the information on the map...(because of when/how it was surveyed) and the GPS readings.

I know of one instance where a very long fence line was actually off the mark by 300 meters on a large ranch in the foothills.
That is to say that it all looked legit according to the landowner map but when compared to a topographic map and a GPS... the fence line (that had been in place for generations) was actually in the wrong spot.

If the offender can successfully argue that point... then there is a little quirk in law called...Actus Reus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus ) that can come into play.

Essentially if the trespasser doesn't believe he did anything wrong and didn't have an intent to commit crime and therefore had/has no guilty thoughts... he walks.

That said, I would think that the clear line between cultivated land and non- cultivated land or the presence of a road allowance would satisfy the requirements of an indication of some sort of boundary.

Again... regardless of whether or not the hunter is responsible to use a map and know where he is... landowners must also accept that if they want to avoid conflict they also have a responsibility to protect their property by indicating where there property starts and stops because you simply cannot expect everyone to be as savy with a map as you would like them to be.

Further... it seems reasonable to me that if a landowner really wants to reduce the number of these incidents... they would at least post their land along cut lines and roads. Even without a fence...a sign every few hundred feet/yards or at access points would probably help a lot and... would make prosecution much easier when it didn't.

I know it sucks to have to put up signs or build a fence just to keep others out but... that is the reality if you want to accomplish that.

To that end... I've often thought that an appropriate punishment for trespass might be to have to help build fences or pay for signs so that landowners would not have to bear the cost of fencing and signage alone. At least that way the "fines" would contribute to the prevention of future difficulties.

Imagine the difficulties that might be avoided if landowners had access to free labor or materials to help them distinguish their boundaries and express their thoughts on hunting access. Imagine how much easier it would be for hunters to gain permission if the free signs also had owner info on them.

I think that would be a win win for all of us.

[Pikebreath]

Pesky, you are putting the "onus" on the landowner to prove possession of the property which was the case prior to 2004..... I will repeat this again for those who missed it the first time I posted it on this thread... Ammendments to the Petty Trespass Act puts the onus on the person wanting access to have permission before entering private lands "that are under cultivation, fenced or enclosed by a natural boundary or enclosed in a manner that indicates the landholder's intention to keep people off the premises or animals on the premises. Importantly hunters or others who access these lands must have permisssion before entering."

See page 32 of the Hunting regs.. it's all there.

All that said, I do agree with you that it certainly helps if landowners use signage to mark boundaries and access conditions, but it is not the landowners legal responsibility to do so any more to prove trespassing on essentially what can be considered "agricultural" lands.

[GoodTimes]

Originally Posted by Mikezilk

HAHA awesome... Check Circus maybe... or Boredom... or Waiting for work to be done so I can hunt

Lmao, nail on th head

[sdkidaho]

Originally Posted by pesky672

Not slamming landowners or the OP here but you can't always expect everyone to magically just know where boundaries begin and end.

Here in the U.S. you have to have your property marked, a sign every 600 feet, or a post with the top painted orange to signify that it is private property and there is no trespassing. Without either of those, some of the land that is privately held could easily be crossed onto from public lands simply due to the size of some of these places...

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Pikebreath

Pesky, you are putting the "onus" on the landowner to prove possession of the property which was the case prior to 2004..... I will repeat this again for those who missed it the first time I posted it on this thread... Ammendments to the Petty Trespass Act puts the onus on the person wanting access to have permission before entering private lands "that are under cultivation, fenced or enclosed by a natural boundary or enclosed in a manner that indicates the landholder's intention to keep people off the premises or animals on the premises. Importantly hunters or others who access these lands must have permisssion before entering."

See page 32 of the Hunting regs.. it's all there.

All that said, I do agree with you that it certainly helps if landowners use signage to mark boundaries and access conditions, but it is not the landowners legal responsibility to do so any more to prove trespassing on essentially what can be considered "agricultural" lands.

I'm not placing the onus on the landowner to prove ownership at all...I'm just saying that in the absence of anything obvious that indicates that land is either owned or that a property line has been crossed... honest mistakes will occur more often and the prosecution of willful trespassers will be more difficult.

There are a number of things that must be proven to convict and one of them will be whether or not the offender knew he was trespassing. If that can't be established because there was no clear indication of ownership or because the landowners map doesn't jive with the GPS or a topo... land owners will no doubt be frustrated more frequently when these sorts of things occur.
Proof of ownership isn't the problem... proof that the offender reasonably knew he was trespassing is.

Further...it is well and fine that hunters are required to know where they are but... has anyone told this to quaders... hikers... and people that might just happen to decide to go for a walk or ride their horses in the woods?
Probably not.
If those people trespass it will be hard to prove guilt regardless of whether or not they in fact were unwelcome on someone elses land unless obvious indications of that fact were present.

I shouldn't have to build a fence to keep my neighbours dog off my lawn...I shouldn't have to put locks on my doors but if I don't want to take chances...I do those things. If I choose not to build a fence... lock my doors or I leave my keys in the car...I have a pretty hard time getting any satisfaction from the courts or my insurance company when the neighbours dogs wanders over... someone enters my home or steals my car.

I'm pretty sure the current system doesn't cover the landowners legal costs if they have any and although they were the victims of tresspass they secure no compensation at all unless they sue. Obviously fencing or signing huge tracts of land is very costly and it would be helpful if there was a mechanism in place to assist landowners with those expenses in lieu of simply fining offenders a few hundred dollars and leaving it at that.

[GoodTimes]

Originally Posted by sdkidaho

Here in the U.S. you have to have your property marked, a sign every 600 feet, or a post with the top painted orange to signify that it is private property and there is no trespassing. Without either of those, some of the land that is privately held could easily be crossed onto from public lands simply due to the size of some of these places...

Here in Alberta, its the recreational users responsibility to know where they are

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by GoodTimes

Here in Alberta, its the recreational users responsibility to know where they are

Until everyone accepts that it is de facto a shared interest this will continue to be a source of friction between some landowners and some hunters more often that it ought or needs to be.

BC does or did require signage to establish trespass....and I think it is not as big of a problem there.

[whitecourtwolverine]

Originally Posted by Houndogn

i can't beleive how this all turns into a complete and utter bunch of bs, arguing over word deffinitions , oh i'd imagine my spelling will be next, the *******es shot a deer a couple hundred yards from my house, drove in my field to get it. Poor misguided souls, maybe shoulda went and helped them ??? good grief so many on here just want to fight and argue....cripes life has enough bs without fightin over what a word means to one or the other........so high school, no wait kindergarden ! Makes me tired sheesh...

You spelled definition wrong!!

WW