Residents allege poaching

[Bonz]

^^^, kinda why it keeps on happening also. like the one lady in the comments...dont like it, then move...lol.

[IronNoggin]

... To me it is quite clear that authorities/govt are afraid to prosecute FN's for stuff like this for fear the court ruling will not go their way. If these guys are prosecuted for trespassing while hunting.... there are many levels of appeal. They get the right lawyer and right judge at some level of appeal and lets say the conviction is overturned.....can you imagine the result of that??? Suddenly you have legal precedent that FN's have the "legal" right to trespass for the purpose of hunting. could only result in widespread violent confrontations. I do believe there are FN's out there that break laws like these on purpose hoping they will be prosecuted so they can take their shot in court at getting these behaviors legitimized by law. If i'm not mistaken, wasn't it a court ruling that legitimized spotlighting??

That's more or less what I was getting at back on page one of this thread.
As in the case of jacklighting, all it took was a test case, quite perhaps perpetrated to test the legal system, and now we face the disastrous results the misguided SCC handed over - "legitimate" (barf) jacklighting...

... The FN's can lose fights like these 100 times.....they only have to win it once...

Precisely. And I honestly do think there is an effort towards "legitimizing" every and anything they can dream up...

In this case, the overlying concern (that being Conservation) was blatantly ignored. There is NO open season for cows, nor any antlerless elk LEH tags issued in the area - for a reason. The herd simply cannot withstand the removal of cows, especially those of breeding age (and that are pregnant to boot). That, alone, should constitute the basis for charging the perpetrators forthwith.

The fact that they conducted this travesty on Private, Posted Land (basically shooting right overtop of the No Hunting sign) is a direct violation of the Wildlife Act. And they KNEW that at the time, which goes to show premeditation.

While I very much DO understand the points being made by Willy (and share them all), methinks in this particular case there isn't a lot of "wiggle room" for denying the fact they are at minimum Guilty of the two offenses noted above.

Charge them. There is moire than sufficient grounds and reason.

Nog

[358mag]

Totally agree.....and this is really the crux of the problem and peoples frustration with "why do the fn's keep getting away with stuff like this?"
To me it is quite clear that authorities/govt are afraid to prosecute FN's for stuff like this for fear the court ruling will not go their way. If these guys are prosecuted for trespassing while hunting.... there are many levels of appeal. They get the right lawyer and right judge at some level of appeal and lets say the conviction is overturned.....can you imagine the result of that??? Suddenly you have legal precedent that FN's have the "legal" right to trespass for the purpose of hunting. could only result in widespread violent confrontations. I do believe there are FN's out there that break laws like these on purpose hoping they will be prosecuted so they can take their shot in court at getting these behaviors legitimized by law. If i'm not mistaken, wasn't it a court ruling that legitimized spotlighting??
I don't know what the answer is....the authorities and govt are between a rock and a hard place....it could potentially be extremely risky with huge wide ranging ramifications to try and prosecute a case like this. You better be POSITIVE you will not only win, but that it will hold up through all levels of appeal to go after this.

Sad state of affairs
Chris

So true and you know dam well that <POS>Grand Chief Stewart Phillips < who was also the chief of the PIB for many years > is just waiting for charges to be laid. He will be standing up on his soap box fighting the charges all the way to the supreme court using our tax $$ and lawyers to win .
Yes very sad state of affairs for sure .

[willyqbc]

While I very much DO understand the points being made by Willy (and share them all), methinks in this particular case there isn't a lot of "wiggle room" for denying the fact they are at minimum Guilty of the two offenses noted above.

Charge them. There is moire than sufficient grounds and reason.

History has shown that wildlife offences in regards to FN's are a battle we cant win in the courts....they could shoot a whole herd of pregnant cows and never be charged with something that will stick.
As sick as it makes me, i believe the best we can do here is "ignore" the wildlife offences and charge them simply with trespassing. Do not muddy the waters in the courts by making the charges even remotely related to "hunting". If we make the "hunting" and the trespassing related and basically one activity we dramatically increase the chances of giving them what they want. Ignore the "hunting" and make it irrelevant, the charges before the court should be trespass alone.

Some crappy fine for trespassing is very small consolation for what was done here, but I honestly cant see anything else here that will stick.

It sickens me that we are in this position.....it seems like trying to take a legal stand could be disastrous, doing nothing...also disastrous. The vigilante approach is not an option unless a huge number of us are willing to go to jail for it.......so where the hell does that leave us???

Again...just my opinion
Chris

[Xenomorph]

History has shown that wildlife offences in regards to FN's are a battle we cant win in the courts....they could shoot a whole herd of pregnant cows and never be charged with something that will stick.
As sick as it makes me, i believe the best we can do here is "ignore" the wildlife offences and charge them simply with trespassing. Do not muddy the waters in the courts by making the charges even remotely related to "hunting". If we make the "hunting" and the trespassing related and basically one activity we dramatically increase the chances of giving them what they want. Ignore the "hunting" and make it irrelevant, the charges before the court should be trespass alone.

Some crappy fine for trespassing is very small consolation for what was done here, but I honestly cant see anything else here that will stick.

It sickens me that we are in this position.....it seems like trying to take a legal stand could be disastrous, doing nothing...also disastrous. The vigilante approach is not an option unless a huge number of us are willing to go to jail for it.......so where the hell does that leave us???

Again...just my opinion
Chris

While I agree it's a difficult road to follow, I cannot concur that it should be left alone. Both RH and FN are utilizing the same resource, which if not protected it will disappear. You don't need to make an argument on right, but on responsibility. One could even as a private person just sue them in small claims for the maximum admissible of 25k. I wonder how many of those claims would they be able to endure. It's a civil prejudice to us all users of the same resource, it doesn't belong solely to a group.

While I believe strongly our legal system is fundamentally flawed on this, I wonder how the future will look. I know how I'd react if my private property was trespassed.

[savagecanuck]

Trespassing fine is about $128 ,I got one 2 years ago.

[Xenomorph]

Responsibility, not blind ignorance and disregard to not only a resource, but to the inviolable property right. If it's OK for them to do this, should it be OK for us to start conquering, because that's our ancestors did?!?

I know, I'm pushing it, but for a good reason, we need to all sit at the same table and have at the coolaid.

[Xenomorph]

Trespassing fine is about $128 ,I got one 2 years ago.

If the owner presses charges it can end up in much more, punitive damages, restraining orders. It will be ugly.

[wideopenthrottle]

History has shown that wildlife offences in regards to FN's are a battle we cant win in the courts....they could shoot a whole herd of pregnant cows and never be charged with something that will stick.
As sick as it makes me, i believe the best we can do here is "ignore" the wildlife offences and charge them simply with trespassing. Do not muddy the waters in the courts by making the charges even remotely related to "hunting". If we make the "hunting" and the trespassing related and basically one activity we dramatically increase the chances of giving them what they want. Ignore the "hunting" and make it irrelevant, the charges before the court should be trespass alone.

Some crappy fine for trespassing is very small consolation for what was done here, but I honestly cant see anything else here that will stick.

It sickens me that we are in this position.....it seems like trying to take a legal stand could be disastrous, doing nothing...also disastrous. The vigilante approach is not an option unless a huge number of us are willing to go to jail for it.......so where the hell does that leave us???

Again...just my opinion
Chris

as you say...dont charge them with any criminal offences...stick to strick liability stuff and write them the biggest ticket a CO or Cop can pull out of his book right on the spot...as a provincial debt could it be used to prevent them from renewing insurance or drivers licence perhaps?

[.300WSMImpact!]

If the owner presses charges it can end up in much more, punitive damages, restraining orders. It will be ugly.

my cousin pressed charges in a case like this a few years ago, since then his cows have been killed off a little at a time