Interesting day on PCR and F&W

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

Fish and Wildlife Officers are concidered Peace officers under the Criminal Code and can enforce it. Fisheries Guardians and Wildlife Guardians can not enforce Criminal Code matters and are not given the powers or protection of Peace Officers under the Criminal Code. They are given that protection through the legislation that they are appointed under while enforcing those acts only.

So where are these guardians? I have only heard of officers before this.

[camshaft]

Haha I didnt have to, I know the officer

[Donkey Oatey]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

So where are these guardians? I have only heard of officers before this.

Many of the biologists and seasonal employees are appointed as guardians. Can do most of the stuff under the act but are not peace officers.

Back in the day when I was a Park Ranger I was appointed as a Fisheries Guardian and as a Wildlife Guardian. Could enforce the acts but was not considered a Peace Officer and could not pull over vehicles for Wildlife Offenses. I could check and ticket fishermen and hunters but was not permitted to do vehicle stops for those checks.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

Many of the biologists and seasonal employees are appointed as guardians. Can do most of the stuff under the act but are not peace officers.

Back in the day when I was a Park Ranger I was appointed as a Fisheries Guardian and as a Wildlife Guardian. Could enforce the acts but was not considered a Peace Officer and could not pull over vehicles for Wildlife Offenses. I could check and ticket fishermen and hunters but was not permitted to do vehicle stops for those checks.

I see. Thanks

[gatorhunter]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

He just has to believe, on reasonable grounds, that either fish or fishing equipment are contained there (ice fishing tent, vehicle etc)

There is no requirement for believing that an offense has been committed to allow a fisheries officer to inspect and/or search anything related to fishing activity, other than a dwelling/residence.

The requirements are reasonable grounds for belief that fishing activity was or had occurred. Obviously, fishing activity was occurring so that burden was met.

The officers could then search "anything" that could contain fish; including a purse or child's back pack. They could search that vehicle from one end to another too; again because the burden of reasonable grounds being met by witnessing fishing activity.

There are definitely "right" ways to conduct such compliance efforts to make sure that the incident ends in a positive experience for the innocent party.

Fish have been found under the hoods, under spare tires, interior compartments and under seats. My personal favourite is sauger fillets in a travel mug!

The various Provincial Fishery Acts and Regulations give fisheries officers the authority to enter into such things as fishing shelters as they are not residences or dwellings. More than one illegal boozer has found that out the hard way.

People who try to prevent officers from searching items and/or places where fish could be found can be arrested and/or charged with obstructing a fishery officer.

As for how the officers are alleged to have been driving, that's what they do to give subjects less time to destroy evidence.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by gatorhunter

There is no requirement for believing that an offense has been committed to allow a fisheries officer to inspect and/or search anything related to fishing activity, other than a dwelling/residence.

The requirements are reasonable grounds for belief that fishing activity was or had occurred. Obviously, fishing activity was occurring so that burden was met.

The officers could then search "anything" that could contain fish; including a purse or child's back pack. They could search that vehicle from one end to another too; again because the burden of reasonable grounds being met by witnessing fishing activity.

There are definitely "right" ways to conduct such compliance efforts to make sure that the incident ends in a positive experience for the innocent party.

Fish have been found under the hoods, under spare tires, interior compartments and under seats. My personal favourite is sauger fillets in a travel mug!

The various Provincial Fishery Acts and Regulations give fisheries officers the authority to enter into such things as fishing shelters as they are not residences or dwellings. More than one illegal boozer has found that out the hard way.

People who try to prevent officers from searching items and/or places where fish could be found can be arrested and/or charged with obstructing a fishery officer.

As for how the officers are alleged to have been driving, that's what they do to give subjects less time to destroy evidence.

Where does your information come from?

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Don't stop now Horsetrader, you're killing me, might as well finish me off.

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Yes.

But to infer ( as Horsetrader has done) that CO's have greater authority than Police is hilarious.

They are all limited in powers by the same provincial/federal legislations and by the Charter.

in the situation we are talking about Yes they do have more authority then the police. if you want to come into a conversation halfway though and change the thread why not just start your own.........

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

Many of the biologists and seasonal employees are appointed as guardians. Can do most of the stuff under the act but are not peace officers.

Back in the day when I was a Park Ranger I was appointed as a Fisheries Guardian and as a Wildlife Guardian. Could enforce the acts but was not considered a Peace Officer and could not pull over vehicles for Wildlife Offenses. I could check and ticket fishermen and hunters but was not permitted to do vehicle stops for those checks.

if your going to throw RCMP, F&W,Park Rangers, and Wildlife Guardian all in to this why not add the CPP to

[Donkey Oatey]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

if your going to throw RCMP, F&W,Park Rangers, and Wildlife Guardian all in to this why not add the CPP to

WTH are you talking about? I was just answering the questions.

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

WTH are you talking about? I was just answering the questions.

the way everyone was adding different enforcement agencies i did not see why CPP should be left out they have as much power as some and more then others mentioned. perhaps I should have not added it to your quote specific I was just reading your when I thought about them. there was no intent against your post in general. It just seemed we started out with a simple F&W issue and soon had everyone but the armed forces involved......man theres another one there....

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

in the situation we are talking about Yes they do have more authority then the police. if you want to come into a conversation halfway though and change the thread why not just start your own.........

I read all the posts. My comments may not help support your position, but they are accurate.




Without consent from the OP, a warrantless search of the vehicle and the wife's purse would be on very shaky ground before the courts, just based on a phone call from a concerned citizen.

Most peole do not understand that you can just say no to an officer's request, and even when innocent of any wrongdoing, saying no can often be the right decision. Officers must learn to follow the law as well.



As has been posted.

FISHERIES (ALBERTA) ACT

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlig...00-c-f-16.html

Search

27(1) A fishery officer or fishery guardian may,

(a) on obtaining a warrant, or

(b) without a warrant if the officer or guardian believes on reasonable and probable grounds that it is not practical to obtain a warrant because the necessary delay may result in the loss of evidence,

search for fish and fishing equipment in any vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft or railway car, or in any business premises, building, tent or structure unless it is used as a private dwelling, when, on reasonable grounds, the officer or guardian believes that fish or fishing equipment is contained there.

(2) A fishery officer or fishery guardian may require the operator or person in possession of a vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft, railway car, animal, pack or container to produce all fish and fishing equipment in or on the vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft, railway car, animal, pack or container for the purpose of inspection and to determine the number, species and size of the fish and to ascertain whether the fish are fit for human consumption, diseased or infested with parasites, if

(a) any fish or fishing equipment in or on the vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft, railway car, animal, pack or container is in plain view of the officer or guardian, or

(b) the officer or guardian believes, on reasonable and probable grounds, that the vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft, railway car, animal, pack or container contains or is carrying fish or fishing equipment.

(3) A fishery officer or fishery guardian may require the owner or occupant of any business premises, building, tent or other structure that is not used as a private dwelling to produce all fish and fishing equipment in the business premises, building, tent or structure for the purpose of inspection and to determine the number, species and size of the fish and to ascertain whether the fish are fit for human consumption, diseased or infested with parasites, if

(a) any fish or fishing equipment in the business premises, building, tent or other structure is in plain view of the officer or guardian, or

(b) the officer or guardian believes, on reasonable and probable grounds, that the business premises, building, tent or other structure contains fish or fishing equipment.

(4) When a fishery officer or fishery guardian requires a person to produce fish or fishing equipment for inspection under this section, that person shall forthwith produce all fish and fishing equipment in or on the vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft, railway car, animal, pack, container, business premises, building, tent or other structure to the officer or guardian.

Now you should read this to understand what "reasonable and probable grounds" means.


Canadian Charter of Rights Decisions Digest

SECTION 8
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlig...igest/s-8.html

[Donkey Oatey]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

the way everyone was adding different enforcement agencies i did not see why CPP should be left out they have as much power as some and more then others mentioned. perhaps I should have not added it to your quote specific I was just reading your when I thought about them. there was no intent against your post in general. It just seemed we started out with a simple F&W issue and soon had everyone but the armed forces involved......man theres another one there....

Fishery officers by virtue of appointments to other offices

19.1 The following individuals are fishery officers by virtue of their appointments to the offices respectively referred to, namely individuals appointed as

(a) members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,

(b) conservation officers, under section 1 of Schedule 3.1 to the Government Organization Act, and

(c) forest officers, under section 2 of the Forests Act.

2002 c30 s8

Fishery guardians

20(1) The Minister may appoint fishery guardians for the purpose of administering this Act.

(2) A fishery guardian has the powers and duties of a fishery guardian provided by this Act that the Minister directs.

1992 cF‑12.2 s20

Peace officer

21(1) A fishery officer or fishery guardian, while administering this Act, is a person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a fishery guardian shall not exercise the powers of arrest given to a peace officer by section 495 of the Criminal Code (Canada)


So, no CPP are not involved as ex officio Fisheries Officers(unless otherwise appointed)

[gatorhunter]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

Where does your information come from?

Fisheries Act of Canada. The statute under which Provincial fishery regulations are made, fishery officers or fishery guardians receive their appointments and given the powers to inspect anything related to fish on reasonable grounds of belief that....follow the link.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...e-15.html#h-13

POWERS OF FISHERY OFFICERS AND FISHERY GUARDIANS
Inspection

49. (1) Subject to subsection (2), for the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Act and the regulations, a fishery officer or fishery guardian may enter and inspect any place, including any premises, vessel or vehicle, in which the officer or guardian believes on reasonable grounds there is any work or undertaking or any fish or other thing in respect of which this Act or the regulations apply and may

(a) open any container that the officer or guardian believes on reasonable grounds contains any fish or other thing in respect of which this Act or the regulations apply;

(b) examine any fish or other thing that the officer or guardian finds and take samples of it;

(c) conduct any tests or analyses and take any measurements; and

(d) require any person to produce for examination or copying any records, books of account or other documents that the officer or guardian believes on reasonable grounds contain information that is relevant to the administration of this Act or the regulations.

[BeeGuy]

Great, thanks.

[artrye]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Artrye,

Did the officers ask if they could search your vehicle?



The discussion is just conjecture without knowing if Artrye gave the CO's permission to search, or not.

No, we were not asked if they could search the vehicles. The officers said that unfortunately we have to look in the vehicles for walleye. The person or 'sport fisherman' who made the complaint, said that we were looking for a place in the vehicle to hide the walleye. They searched through all cracks and potential spots to hide fish. From under the dash to the engine bay. Like I said even in my wife's $1500 purse... When I commented on hiding a fish in an expensive purse, he replies 'you'd be surprised'. Any hole close to where we were fishing the officers were elbow deep in the hole looking for fish. The interesting thing is that the officer had the owner of the vehicles (myself and a buddy) open all compartments, doors, carpet they just held the flashlight. The only thing they did was leaned on the carpet to see up the dashboard.
Whether or not it was lawful or unlawful, I had nothing to hide. If the officers wanted to search, one way or another they will, with or without permission.

The way I look at it.... If they find nothing and all were lawful, All a person will get is sorry or an apology and a comment 'have a good evening' . Now if they do find a walleye? A lawful search or not, they found a walleye.

[walking buffalo]

Artrye,

I'm just going by what you wrote.


By having YOU open the compartments, you gave them access. They were just looking for what was in "View".

I get the impression that these CO's have experience in legal searches, and know how to influence a suspect into providing access.

The search may have been less invasive if you said No to opening the vehicle, compartments or purse.

"Now if they do find a walleye? A lawful search or not, they found a walleye."

Sure, if they find walter, they found walter. But if they found walter through an illegal search, the charges would never stick.

[Bush]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Artrye,


Sure, if they find walter, they found walter. But if they found walter through an illegal search, the charges would never stick.

False

A friend of mine got caught keeping too small of a pike. 1 week before the first court date while he was away from his house f&w went on his property without a warrent and found 5 walleye fillets in a freezer. The charges were never dropped he ended up guilty on both charges

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by Bush

False

A friend of mine got caught keeping too small of a pike. 1 week before the first court date while he was away from his house f&w went on his property without a warrent and found 5 walleye fillets in a freezer. The charges were never dropped he ended up guilty on both charges

I think a better lawyer would have been useful in this circumstance. Or maybe he just plead guilty to lower the charges? I can't see the proceeds of a warrant-less search being used to find someone guilty.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by artrye

No, we were not asked if they could search the vehicles. The officers said that unfortunately we have to look in the vehicles for walleye. The person or 'sport fisherman' who made the complaint, said that we were looking for a place in the vehicle to hide the walleye. They searched through all cracks and potential spots to hide fish. From under the dash to the engine bay. Like I said even in my wife's $1500 purse... When I commented on hiding a fish in an expensive purse, he replies 'you'd be surprised'. Any hole close to where we were fishing the officers were elbow deep in the hole looking for fish. The interesting thing is that the officer had the owner of the vehicles (myself and a buddy) open all compartments, doors, carpet they just held the flashlight. The only thing they did was leaned on the carpet to see up the dashboard.
Whether or not it was lawful or unlawful, I had nothing to hide. If the officers wanted to search, one way or another they will, with or without permission.

The way I look at it.... If they find nothing and all were lawful, All a person will get is sorry or an apology and a comment 'have a good evening' . Now if they do find a walleye? A lawful search or not, they found a walleye.

Kind of sounds like they tricked you into thinking that you had to provide them access. Next time, make sure that you say you do not want them to search but will allow it if you legally have to. (if you care about your rights being trampled, which I get the impression that you don't)

Although, thinking back to the fisheries act, it sounds like they are allowed to search any time they want if there is evidence of fish or fishing equipment, which there obviously was.

So, knowing that the Charter of Rights states; "everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure", does the fisheries act somehow supersede the Charter? Having my car ripped apart because I have a fishing rod in the backseat seems like an unreasonable search to me, but according to the fisheries act, that's all that's required.

[wildcat111]

i remeber a couple years back this guy was using bait on the bow river, i call it in and an officer came down, the guy seen him coming and conviently snag his line and broke off, of course when the officer arrives hes tying on a spoon, they b.s for a couple minutes and he goes to leave, i was so mad i call the officer over and told him to look in his friggin bag, holy look there worms in there. i think f&w have to do a search , like the one they did to the orginal poster, i'm sure the people that reported the incident were close by and chances are they were contacted by f&w after they were done investigating.everyone makes mistakes but if f&w has to do a proper investigation or there going to have to deal with the orginal complainer and management.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by wildcat111

i remeber a couple years back this guy was using bait on the bow river, i call it in and an officer came down, the guy seen him coming and conviently snag his line and broke off, of course when the officer arrives hes tying on a spoon, they b.s for a couple minutes and he goes to leave, i was so mad i call the officer over and told him to look in his friggin bag, holy look there worms in there. i think f&w have to do a search , like the one they did to the orginal poster, i'm sure the people that reported the incident were close by and chances are they were contacted by f&w after they were done investigating.everyone makes mistakes but if f&w has to do a proper investigation or there going to have to deal with the orginal complainer and management.

Do you remember if the guy let the officer look in the bag or did he say no but the officer still looked?

[Bigdad013]

I find it funny that people still think a purse is sacred territory..

F&W only doing there job, maybe could have approached it better with some good questions first, ask the kid questions, they don't lie, they will tell you everything, what they are catching how many etc...with great pride....

[BeeGuy]

It's always good practice to say it.

It is also you, exercising your freedoms.

"I do not consent to a search."

You'll also find that the video function on your cell phone is priceless. Your lawyer will love you for it.

Remember, authority figures are not your friends.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by wildcat111

i remeber a couple years back this guy was using bait on the bow river, i call it in and an officer came down, the guy seen him coming and conviently snag his line and broke off, of course when the officer arrives hes tying on a spoon, they b.s for a couple minutes and he goes to leave, i was so mad i call the officer over and told him to look in his friggin bag, holy look there worms in there. i think f&w have to do a search , like the one they did to the orginal poster, i'm sure the people that reported the incident were close by and chances are they were contacted by f&w after they were done investigating.everyone makes mistakes but if f&w has to do a proper investigation or there going to have to deal with the orginal complainer and management.

Our freedoms in this country are more important than busting a guy with worms on the Bow.

Still I agree with your sentiment. Who fishes the Bow with worms, knowingly????

At one of my favorite pools I found empty tubs of Eze-minnows. Some people need a good slap or public shaming.

Maybe they should start publishing convicted poachers names and crime in the AO magazine and local papers.

[chubbdarter]

Well im not sure who the Officer was but in any case whoever it is was He or She can search all they want. I have nothing to hide. I asked my wife if She minded, her response was " search away".

I dont mind the time they take as it would give me the chance to carry on a conversation with the Officer about general fisheries issues.

I have never been searched I admit but Ive had the pleasure of meeting many Officers and have never met one that I didnt like. I garantee if and when one does search my truck or house I will still respect Him or Her for the job they do.

[horsetrader]

I hope the some day certain people need the help of AUTHORITY FIGURES and I hope at that time the the AUTHORITY FIGURES just sit back and watch this person get his just rewards...... maybe a cane hooking his leg and a smack on the head....... I did not address this to anyone specific or quote anyones post as I do not want this to be considered TROLLING. Just my opinion.....

[BeeGuy]

Horsetarder, you are a class act.

[gl2]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

Remember, authority figures are not your friends.

did you teach your kids that?....

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by gl2

did you teach your kids that?....

Interestingly enough, that is a quote from the general discussion forum. It was posted by someone who's father was a retired officer and it was the fathers advise to the son.

I would not teach that to my children until they were about 14 and needed to start understanding how the world actually works and how to protect themselves legally.

You see, the authorities dont view us as sunshine rainbow happy citizens. They view us as potential perps.

We are job security, and they have a quota to fill.

That said, I am not against LEO's or CO's or any other similar occupations. I believe they are a necessity and I appreciate the work they do.

I also believe in my charter rights and freedoms and believe I have the right to the security of my person from unreasonable search and seizure.

I don't poach, and because of this it is my opinion that CO's will never have just cause to search me.

See where I'm coming from?

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

It's pretty amazing that an anonymous tip can lead to the searching of people, their possessions and vehicles.

If it was me, I would have been pretty angry.

We have laws against unreasonable search and to me this would have qualified.

Whatever happened to proof?

As I recall there are a bunch of militant members here with rap on speed dial who will call over any perceived violation.

Beeguy, very well said. That echoes my thoughts exactly.

Guilty until proven innocent is a poor practice. The little "squeal pigeons" that are quick on their speed dail are just cowards in my opinion, confrontation or not. As for quoting the law, great until this happens to you. As the original poster said, no harm done, but, I'm sure it didn't add to the days enjoyment for anyone.