Ever had a concervation officer go thru your camp while you where out hunting?

[HARDICAT]

I realize we need enforcement to protect a resource we all cherish but WTF?

[Chopper]

That dosnt sound leagal ... Whats the story ?

[Sylus]

What actually happened? I feel there is some back-story here that needs to be told.

[blackbart]

Agree with Sylus. Care to tell more detail.

They are out there protecting our fish and wildlife resource from mis-use. Could never figure out why they get bashed so much on sites like this?? Anyways, hope everything worked out for you and your camp. Pretty confident that they wouldn't be stealing stuff or wrecking stuff. That is another thread topic that tends to come up frequently and is locked down quickly:)

[HARDICAT]

We are dealing with pemberton RCMP so I will bite my lip harder till we get this sorted out.

[Gr8 white hunter]

When your out camping isn't your camp a place of residence ? for the time your there.Isn't that trespassing .

[HARDICAT]

Unsecured food in a cooler $250 fine. That was just the start of it.

[OOBuck]

Brother inlaw had the local conservation officer deliver a fine from the Princeton conservation officer for get this "defecating in the woods" that right shitting in the bush!!

1200.00 dollars!!! Seem they ran his plate and served the fine here.

I asked if the guys were being pigs NOPE they had dug a pit toilet and filled it in when they left!!!

People the province is broke and this shit is only going to get worse!!!!!!!!

[coach]

There's a reason we have a court system. If the charges are BS - fight them and you will win.. Meanwhile there are many good CO's out there doing an important job.

[Iron Glove]

Unsecured food in a cooler $250 fine. That was just the start of it.

Have been in National Parks like Banff when the Park Rangers went around ticketing people who had gone into town while leaving coolers and such sitting on their tables.
Sounds about the same ??

[huntermike]

Brother inlaw had the local conservation officer deliver a fine from the Princeton conservation officer for get this "defecating in the woods" that right shitting in the bush!!

1200.00 dollars!!! Seem they ran his plate and served the fine here.

I asked if the guys were being pigs NOPE they had dug a pit toilet and filled it in when they left!!!

People the province is broke and this shit is only going to get worse!!!!!!!!

If this is wrong . Then what is the correct way to ---- in the woods

[nelsonob1]

There's a reason we have a court system. If the charges are BS - fight them and you will win.. Meanwhile there are many good CO's out there doing an important job.

Good advice and I agree. can't tarnish the CO's for a couple of dinks in the same way you can't misjudge hunters for a few idiots.

[mud-dog27]

wow a ticket for sh!ttin in the woods...thats a new one but sadly im not surprised.

[nelsonob1]

There is no trespass if your camp is on crown land. It is public space. In the same way as some one entering your vehicle on the road is not legally trespassing. The CO/police/public can not go into enclosed space, such as tents, closed boxes, vehicles, etc unless they have reasonable cause - ie someone accused you of a crime, or something they saw evidenced a crime in progress. In which case they are legally entitled to search your property under certain strict rules. In a sense it is always about reasonableness: for example finding an open cooler with a exposed chicken leg does not give them a right to search your tent or vehicle, but they could take a closer look at say, any partially open bags laid around that might have food or garbage in them.

In the event they unlawfully searched your camp then they can be charged with breaking the peace, causing a nuisance, unlawful search, etc.

[HARDICAT]

Yes there are many hard working COs that I really appreciate their dedication to our wildlife. I want to make that crystal clear

[7mm]

If the co has probable cause wait till you come back and ask. Sounds like something the co from sechelt would do. As he is trying to win prick of the year

[Sofa King]

another hunter told me a story about what happened to him.
he had his truck parked at a dead-end road in a cutblock.
it was a steeper cut, and he was up sitting high in it and had a good view of his truck.
awhile later, he sees a truck come into the cut and to the end of the road.
it stopped by his truck and a guy got out and walked over and was looking at his truck.
then he sees the guy open his door and lean right in and start going through his stuff.
he starts yelling and makes his way down the hill.
he gets down there, and it's a CO, and the guy says he saw a gun in the truck and wanted to see if it was loaded.
he told me there's no way the CO could have seen the gun, he had it covered up and behind the seat.
but, what's a guy to do?
it's your word against theirs, and a judge will always side with them, just like if one were trying to argue with a cop.

[Sofa King]

There is no trespass if your camp is on crown land. It is public space. In the same way as some one entering your vehicle on the road is not legally trespassing. The CO/police/public can not go into enclosed space, such as tents, closed boxes, vehicles, etc unless they have reasonable cause - ie someone accused you of a crime, or something they saw evidenced a crime in progress. In which case they are legally entitled to search your property under certain strict rules. In a sense it is always about reasonableness: for example finding an open cooler with a exposed chicken leg does not give them a right to search your tent or vehicle, but they could take a closer look at say, any partially open bags laid around that might have food or garbage in them.

In the event they unlawfully searched your camp then they can be charged with breaking the peace, causing a nuisance, unlawful search, etc.

yeah right, good luck with that.
is there any cases where someone's won a charge like that?

[Sofa King]

I imagine we were lucky not have been handed a few tickets ourselves this weekend, eh Mud-dog27
:-D

i'm curious as to what he'd call the charge.
I guess he'd label it littering?
that's complete garbage, are they trying to suggest that falls under the similar thing of people picking up after their dog shits in the street?
we are supposed to shit in a bag and take it home?
for that, I'm taking exlax on my next hunt and shitting up a storm all over the woods.
what ridiculousness.

[slayer B]

So where do they expect us to find these hidden/new rules and regs? Law enforcement officers who do this need to have complaints filed against them and perhaps in the case of poopin in the bush the media should be called to make some serious light of the situation. As long as they get away with it the silliness will continue. Plus it makes people wonder about the good guys, who are doing a damn hard job.

[nelsonob1]

I agree with 100%. Don't let them get away with it. Call their boss, file a formal complaint and copy it to the Minster's department. Tell your MLA and send a copy of the complaint to the press. basically make a fuss, make the individual accountable and then they will think twice before doing a second time.

I was stopped a couple of seasons back by a CO who wanted to be a dink. I told him that it would be better for both of us to record the conversation with my phone. He stopped being a dink real fast.

[nelsonob1]

yeah right, good luck with that.
is there any cases where someone's won a charge like that?

I will do a search and let you know although I suspect it will have a low yield. Another way to consider it is how many cases have been dropped by CO's and police on the basis of improper searches. It is interesting because in each of those cases an unlawful search could have been considered and illegal act on behalf of the CO/police.

[Sofa King]

So where do they expect us to find these hidden/new rules and regs? Law enforcement officers who do this need to have complaints filed against them and perhaps in the case of poopin in the bush the media should be called to make some serious light of the situation. As long as they get away with it the silliness will continue. Plus it makes people wonder about the good guys, who are doing a damn hard job.

very good point.
call global and get this on the news.
call out them idiots for wasting valuable resources.
while he's writing a guy up for taking a shit behind a tree, a poacher was driving out of the bush and home.

[40incher]

The C.O. Service has become a joke ... I know this personally.

Laid a complaint of perjury against a "defender of the good" when I took a charge to court and won it. He lied in court in a desperate attempt to save face. Five years later and still waiting for justice!

Coach ... you would be wise to not defend dysfunction when it's staring you in the face.

Listen to what is being said instead of trying to score points you will never redeem.

[Sofa King]

I will do a search and let you know although I suspect it will have a low yield. Another way to consider it is how many cases have been dropped by CO's and police on the basis of improper searches. It is interesting because in each of those cases an unlawful search could have been considered and illegal act on behalf of the CO/police.

the big problem is that it's pretty hard to make anything stick when it's against the very people who are supposed to be upholding the law.
the courts will almost always side with them.
kinda like the guy on here who got a speeding ticket.
the cop never used his radar, said he could judge the speed.
then, in court, the judge agrees and says that cops are trained to be able to gauge speeds.
it's bs, the cop couldn't prove anything, but he doesn't need to, his word will win.

[Aaron600]

Hey 7MM, how has the CO in Sechelt been a prick just out of curiosity? Ive run into that guy (Dark hair mid 40's) 1 time last year and a few times this year while fishing/hunting over there and hes seemed pretty nice to my brother and I. He's even given us a couple spots to try around the lower mainland for hunting deer.

[Sitkaspruce]

but, what's a guy to do?
it's your word against theirs, and a judge will always side with them, just like if one were trying to argue with a cop.

As you are so fond of saying......"Bullshit"....

There is tons of court cases where they courts have settled for what the accused has said....and not sided with the CO's/Police Officer etc..

But we are going sideways again...stay with the topic

Cheers

SS

[randymac]

I gotta call bull$hit on this one. Show us the ticket and I'll eat it, the ticket that is- not the $hit.

Brother inlaw had the local conservation officer deliver a fine from the Princeton conservation officer for get this "defecating in the woods" that right shitting in the bush!!

1200.00 dollars!!! Seem they ran his plate and served the fine here.

I asked if the guys were being pigs NOPE they had dug a pit toilet and filled it in when they left!!!

People the province is broke and this shit is only going to get worse!!!!!!!!

[Quince]

For the 1st time a co made me super nervous, stopped me, hid in my blinds spot on the drivers side with his hand on his gun ready to draw(made a point of putting both hands on the wheel). Conversation went on atleast a min before he actually talked to me face to face. 1st bad experience with co's but tough job with little resources but still feel safer being stopped by a co than a cop right now.

[Fisher-Dude]

You should familiarize yourself with the Wildlife Act before you decide what an officer can or can't do.



Entering premises
89 (1) For the purpose of ensuring that this Act and the regulations are being complied with, an officer may enter and inspect any premises or enclosure in which live wildlife or live fish is kept but, at the request of the owner or occupier, the officer must produce proof of identity.

(2) Despite the Trespass Act, an officer exercising duties under this Act may enter any land, whether enclosed or not but, at the request of the owner or occupier of the land, the officer must produce proof of identity.

Inspection of camps
91 An officer may inspect a camp occupied by a hunter or angler.


Search without warrant
93 A conservation officer or constable may, without a warrant,

(a) search a person whom he or she believes on reasonable grounds has in his or her possession any wildlife or fish killed, taken or possessed in violation of this Act or the regulations, or about to be illegally exported,

(b) stop and search a motor vehicle, private or chartered aircraft, boat or other conveyance, in or on which he or she believes on reasonable grounds that wildlife or fish is being carried by a person, and

(c) enter and search a shop, public market, storehouse, garage, restaurant, hotel, eating house or camp, in or on which he or she believes on reasonable grounds that wildlife or fish is located.

[squamishhunter]

Had one pull his gun on me a couple weeks ago. Didn't announce himself and all i see is a shadowed figure casing out my truck.

[HARDICAT]

Fisher-Dude I am not saying what an officer can and can't do. Read all my comments carefully

[ryanonthevedder]

Met up with one at Boston Bar a few weeks ago, and he seemed more interested in my Dad's truck. He checked my gun, license and PAL, but not before he found out what kind of mileage the truck was getting. Kind of left me scratching my head. First time I ve been stopped hunting, and only the third time in my life I have seen a CO in the field. An underfunded and overworked profession for sure.

[OOBuck]

If this is wrong . Then what is the correct way to ---- in the woods

Conservation officer here said he didn't agree with the fine he just paid it

[nelsonob1]

You should familiarize yourself with the Wildlife Act before you decide what an officer can or can't do.



Entering premises
89 (1) For the purpose of ensuring that this Act and the regulations are being complied with, an officer may enter and inspect any premises or enclosure in which live wildlife or live fish is kept but, at the request of the owner or occupier, the officer must produce proof of identity.

(2) Despite the Trespass Act, an officer exercising duties under this Act may enter any land, whether enclosed or not but, at the request of the owner or occupier of the land, the officer must produce proof of identity.

Inspection of camps
91 An officer may inspect a camp occupied by a hunter or angler.


Search without warrant
93 A conservation officer or constable may, without a warrant,

(a) search a person whom he or she believes on reasonable grounds has in his or her possession any wildlife or fish killed, taken or possessed in violation of this Act or the regulations, or about to be illegally exported,

(b) stop and search a motor vehicle, private or chartered aircraft, boat or other conveyance, in or on which he or she believes on reasonable grounds that wildlife or fish is being carried by a person, and

(c) enter and search a shop, public market, storehouse, garage, restaurant, hotel, eating house or camp, in or on which he or she believes on reasonable grounds that wildlife or fish is located.

As mentioned early, it comes down to the "reasonable" nature of the inspection. An exposed chicken leg by the fire does not warrant a search of enclosed storage boxes, vehicles etc. An officer IMO may have the ability to stop your vehicle, question you whether you are hunting and then, if he has reasonable grounds to believe that you are, may inspect your truck. He is acting unreasonably to find an empty truck parked at the side of a FSR and then search it.
The case law in Canada has come to the defense in many cases where a officer has over stepped the boundaries of a reasonable inspection and many instances cases have been dismissed on the grounds of improper searches.

[Sofa King]

As you are so fond of saying......"Bullshit"....

There is tons of court cases where they courts have settled for what the accused has said....and not sided with the CO's/Police Officer etc..

But we are going sideways again...stay with the topic

Cheers

SS

bullshit.

but really, it is even when it's settled.
because all that happens is it's then thrown out.
what about the cop or co doing the wrong thing though?
why no punishment to them? because if they were found to be right, there's be severe punishment to the guilty party, but when they are wrong, they just get to go back to work and keep handing out similar tickets possibly.
and not to mention, the $$ a person lost by missing work to have to go to court, the possible hunting days that were lost because of bogus charges, etc.
the civi still loses even when he wins.

[Sofa King]

You should familiarize yourself with the Wildlife Act before you decide what an officer can or can't do.



Entering premises
89 (1) For the purpose of ensuring that this Act and the regulations are being complied with, an officer may enter and inspect any premises or enclosure in which live wildlife or live fish is kept but, at the request of the owner or occupier, the officer must produce proof of identity.

(2) Despite the Trespass Act, an officer exercising duties under this Act may enter any land, whether enclosed or not but, at the request of the owner or occupier of the land, the officer must produce proof of identity.

Inspection of camps
91 An officer may inspect a camp occupied by a hunter or angler.


Search without warrant
93 A conservation officer or constable may, without a warrant,

(a) search a person whom he or she believes on reasonable grounds has in his or her possession any wildlife or fish killed, taken or possessed in violation of this Act or the regulations, or about to be illegally exported,

(b) stop and search a motor vehicle, private or chartered aircraft, boat or other conveyance, in or on which he or she believes on reasonable grounds that wildlife or fish is being carried by a person, and

(c) enter and search a shop, public market, storehouse, garage, restaurant, hotel, eating house or camp, in or on which he or she believes on reasonable grounds that wildlife or fish is located.

I like how they word those so that they basically have the power to do whatever the hell they please.
they can always just say, "I believed there may have been fish or wildlife present" and they can do anything.

[1/2 slam]

the big problem is that it's pretty hard to make anything stick when it's against the very people who are supposed to be upholding the law.
the courts will almost always side with them.
kinda like the guy on here who got a speeding ticket.
the cop never used his radar, said he could judge the speed.
then, in court, the judge agrees and says that cops are trained to be able to gauge speeds.
it's bs, the cop couldn't prove anything, but he doesn't need to, his word will win.

You really are clueless. Everyone here can estimate speeds of moving vehicles. You do it every day.

[aggiehunter]

some of the posters must be a little non-observant if they can't see the public shit show that goes on during hunting season..kudos for the co's for their patience in most cases....

[Big Lew]

Brother inlaw had the local conservation officer deliver a fine from the Princeton conservation officer for get this "defecating in the woods" that right shitting in the bush!!

1200.00 dollars!!! Seem they ran his plate and served the fine here.

I asked if the guys were being pigs NOPE they had dug a pit toilet and filled it in when they left!!!

People the province is broke and this shit is only going to get worse!!!!!!!!

No offense meant, but that doesn't sound like we're 'privy' to the whole story.
Was he in a park or recreational site where there were toilets available?
Was he in an environmentally sensitive area?
There must have been unusual circumstances otherwise all the loggers, timber cruisers,
or anyone else traveling throughout the backwoods far from established campsites etc.
would not only have already been hassled and fined, but the rest of the general public
using the wilderness would have raised a huge 'stink' about such nonsense.

[Jagermeister]

Know your Charter Rights and Freedoms.

[HARDICAT]

Mpotzold now tell how would you feel if instead of having a couple of stickers left at you camper. You realize someone had gone thru all your bags and personal belongings ! The probable cause is an unsecured food cooler.

[303savage]

Unsecured food (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/#) in a cooler $250 fine.
WTF is Unsecured food in a cooler?

[boxhitch]

From the wildlife act

33.1 (1) A person must not

(a) intentionally feed or attempt to feed dangerous wildlife, or
(b) provide, leave or place an attractant in, on or about any land or premises with the intent of attracting dangerous wildlife.
(2) A person must not leave or place an attractant in, on or about any land or premises where there are or where there are likely to be people, in a manner in which the attractant could
(a) attract dangerous wildlife to the land or premises, and
(b) be accessible to dangerous wildlife.
the same law where charges can be laid for garbage cans , compost piles , bbq's , pet food dishes etc

If this is used as a reason to search through a camp , there must have been something obvious to start things off.

[Ranger95]

Had a CO come marching up to our camp in 5-15 this year, asked to see our moose LEH - tags - we showed them to him - including our Licence - etc.etc.

He then wanted to snoop in our tent - we told him that our dog bites unwelcome guests and it was starting to growl - he got the message and left

I have no problem with him doing what he did when he first got there - that's what I would expect from a nature conservation officer. If he had insisted on entering to snoop / search our tent for a reason to hand out a BS fine - - well let's just say I would not have objected to my dog taking a piece off him.

We knew there were grizzly bears in close proximity to our camp - we did not need a co tell us not to leave food and shit laying around to attract them - we like our own skin too much, to be quite frank!

[Cookie1965]

I think if there was a bear problem in an area, especially if it was well known (posted) I wouldn't have a problem with a CO entering my camp to make sure only non attractive food and bevvies were in coolers and food boxes not in my truck or otherwise bear-proofed.

[caddisguy]

You should familiarize yourself with the Wildlife Act before you decide what an officer can or can't do.



Entering premises
89 (1) For the purpose of ensuring that this Act and the regulations are being complied with, an officer may enter and inspect any premises or enclosure in which live wildlife or live fish is kept but, at the request of the owner or occupier, the officer must produce proof of identity.

(2) Despite the Trespass Act, an officer exercising duties under this Act may enter any land, whether enclosed or not but, at the request of the owner or occupier of the land, the officer must produce proof of identity.

Inspection of camps
91 An officer may inspect a camp occupied by a hunter or angler.


Search without warrant
93 A conservation officer or constable may, without a warrant,

(a) search a person whom he or she believes on reasonable grounds has in his or her possession any wildlife or fish killed, taken or possessed in violation of this Act or the regulations, or about to be illegally exported,

(b) stop and search a motor vehicle, private or chartered aircraft, boat or other conveyance, in or on which he or she believes on reasonable grounds that wildlife or fish is being carried by a person, and

(c) enter and search a shop, public market, storehouse, garage, restaurant, hotel, eating house or camp, in or on which he or she believes on reasonable grounds that wildlife or fish is located.

4 pages in and finally someone pointed it out. CO's don't need warrants to search for the most part.

Often in the LML you will see RCMP double up with the CO's at road blocks. East Harrison, Stave, Sylvestor... usually 2-3 RCMP rigs per CO at the stops. The CO can search while the RCMP "hang out". I imagine this stuff will keep happening until someone wins a Charter defense and it is upheld on appeal.

The only time I've had a CO poke around in my vehicle solo was on the Skagit road... just to check and make sure everything was unloaded he said... this transpired into what I call the "prohibited un-pinned 10/22 mag incident"

There might also be something in the Firearms Act allowing search of a vehicle if there are firearms. It is also illegal to say that there are no firearms. Say no to firearms, get checked for "fish or game" lose guns.

[Ranger95]

I think if there was a bear problem in an area, especially if it was well known (posted) I wouldn't have a problem with a CO entering my camp to make sure only non attractive food and bevvies were in coolers and food boxes not in my truck or otherwise bear-proofed.

Well that's the funny thing - he never even mentioned the bear we knew were less than mile from where we were sitting around our camp fire.

When he was walking away we told to keep his eyes open because he had a 400 meter walk across the cut block to get to his vehicle that he choose leave so that he could sneak up on us. I don't think he even a clue about the bear being there!

we really hope that he had a hip flask full of some strong stuff in his pocket - just for fortitude! :-D

[caddisguy]

not to mention, the $$ a person lost by missing work to have to go to court, the possible hunting days that were lost because of bogus charges, etc.
the civi still loses even when he wins.

Process is often the punishment. Guys have spent several years and tens of thousands of dollars trying to fight criminal charges with are bogus within the spirit of the law.

Take "careless use/storage/transportation of guns/ammo" from the Firearms Act for example. There is no law saying we have to transport ammo or unrestricteds a certain way... just unloaded and not in sight when the vehicle is unattended. Most of us have ammo in the console, cup holder, etc. That said, hunters have had their lives severely disrupted when officers decide to place a test of the before the courts and say that having ammo in the glovebox is "careless". This has happened and before and could happen again to any of us. That said, we could also be attacked by a grizz... only way to be 100% safe is to not hunt. I will take my chances.

[Bro 300]

Unsecured food in a cooler $250 fine. That was just the start of it.


Would this not mean that anytime we hang our game in camp, we are in violation of this act.

[OOBuck]

I gotta call bull$hit on this one. Show us the ticket and I'll eat it, the ticket that is- not the $hit.


I have nothing to prove to you. If you like eating shit so be it. They were going to fight the ticket but the guy that owned the trailer that they took license plate off of
is a respected Notary in Victoria so they just paid the fine..

[OOBuck]

No offense meant, but that doesn't sound like we're 'privy' to the whole story.
Was he in a park or recreational site where there were toilets available?
Was he in an environmentally sensitive area?
There must have been unusual circumstances otherwise all the loggers, timber cruisers,
or anyone else traveling throughout the backwoods far from established campsites etc.
would not only have already been hassled and fined, but the rest of the general public
using the wilderness would have raised a huge 'stink' about such nonsense.


I wasn't there and they didn't even know the conservation officer had been in there camp until they arrived home and got the fine here from the conservation
officer in Victoria. He grabbed the license plate off of the travel trailer own by another buddy. I asked if they were shitting in the woods and flinging TP everywhere NOPE they had dug a pit toilet and filled it in when they left. I don't know the exact location. They paid the fine as the owner of the trailer did want any issues.

[Sitkaspruce]

Everyone has options when they receive a ticket....pay it or fight it. Whining on here will not change the results. Only you can do that.

If you feel unjust, defend yourself. Contrary to SF's thoughts, you can win and there can be consequences to the officer if they stepped out of line. Lots of court cases to show that.

Cheers

SS

[steel_ram]

I don't care if they just take a wander through my camp. Had it happen and the only reason I know is that he left his business card. If someone had entered by tent and gone through my personal items that would be another thing.
My understanding is that CO's have more search powers than regular cops.

[Mik]

That's ridiculous! This particular CO can go into ANY and ALL camps and find Sh*t everywhere! Knit-pickin and a waste of tax dollars as far as I'm concerned.that CO should be fired !

[Gilmore]

We are dealing with pemberton RCMP so I will bite my lip harder till we get this sorted out.


T....the probable cause is an unsecured food cooler.


I have heard a couple stories that made me think we may have an over achiever in the area.

Personally never had a bad experience with a CO, been stopped many times and like most hunters have had nothing but good experiences but they are human.

[BRvalley]

the group that got a fine for shitting in the woods...please post the region and the CO's name from the ticket...so we all know to clench really tight and hold onto that turd until we find a gas station lol

that is just brutal

[Big Lew]

I wasn't there and they didn't even know the conservation officer had been in there camp until they arrived home and got the fine here from the conservation
officer in Victoria. He grabbed the license plate off of the travel trailer own by another buddy. I asked if they were shitting in the woods and flinging TP everywhere NOPE they had dug a pit toilet and filled it in when they left. I don't know the exact location. They paid the fine as the owner of the trailer did want any issues.

Is it possible that they were allowing their trailer waste to go into their pit? It is a big fine indeed if you are
caught dumping trailer waste anywhere other than in a sani-dump or other designated facility.

[burger]

Unsecured food in a cooler $250 fine. That was just the start of it.


Would this not mean that anytime we hang our game in camp, we are in violation of this act.


This is a great question. One that might be warranted to ask the RCMP that your dealing with. If so how do they suggest dealing with fresh game?

[Dannybuoy]

This is a great question. One that might be warranted to ask the RCMP that your dealing with. If so how do they suggest dealing with fresh game?

If you seriously have to ask that question then you need to do a little more research before camping after a successful hunt ..... All I can say is WOW to some of the comments when it comes to anyone in authority ! This is not directed at the comments that get it !

[Dannybuoy]

I don't care if they just take a wander through my camp. Had it happen and the only reason I know is that he left his business card. If someone had entered by tent and gone through my personal items that would be another thing.
My understanding is that CO's have more search powers than regular cops.
I believe that all "peace officers" have that power if and when it falls under the " wildlife act " so that could include forestry if they were made special constables ...
And I am not a peace officer of any kind .. but I do know a few in the profession .

[southsider]

Not without a warrant!!!!!!
I would take a lawyer, and tell theme that you are missing your wallet, binos, money is missing etc..........

[Singleshotneeded]

Good for you for lodging a complaint with the RCMP...if this CO or two are being idiots then it needs to be nipped in the bud before they do anything else to tarnish the service. Keeping one's mouth shut and putting up with bad behaviour never effected any change or made anything better. Cops and game wardens are people, and there's always a few pos's that sneak in past the folks doing the hiring. Congrats for doing something about it!

[Dannybuoy]

Not without a warrant!!!!!!
I would take a lawyer, and tell theme that you are missing your wallet, binos, money is missing etc..........

Hey way to go .... A new all time dumbest post !

[Iron Glove]

Not without a warrant!!!!!!
I would take a lawyer, and tell theme that you are missing your wallet, binos, money is missing etc..........

You might want to read some of the earlier, informative posts where the pertinent sections of the Act were quoted.
Then maybe rethink your post.

[Dannybuoy]

You might want to read some of the earlier, informative posts where the pertinent sections of the Act were quoted.
Then maybe rethink your post.
Heh heh A much more politically correct to say it ! Good on you Iron Glove .... I just figured when they ( anti-authority weenies) start trolling for a reaction , I'd oblige :-D

[Fisher-Dude]

Not without a warrant!!!!!!
I would take a lawyer, and tell theme that you are missing your wallet, binos, money is missing etc..........

Yeah, because escalating a $250 fine into criminal mischief charges and criminal perjury charges is the best thing to do.

[Bro 300]

If you seriously have to ask that question then you need to do a little more research before camping after a successful hunt ..... All I can say is WOW to some of the comments when it comes to anyone in authority ! This is not directed at the comments that get it !

So much for gaining any knowledge from this forum.

I'm out!

[Singleshotneeded]

If you seriously have to ask that question then you need to do a little more research before camping after a successful hunt ..... All I can say is WOW to some of the comments when it comes to anyone in authority ! This is not directed at the comments that get it !

So much for gaining any knowledge from this forum.

I'm out!

Bro 300, like any forum there's a variety of folks on here, the vast majority are excellent people with plenty of hunting experience, and a few are doo daa's... Just like the vast majority of police and COs are excellent, but a few that have snuck into the service sometimes makes you wonder. There's a lot of good information on here, have a bit of patience with the site... Cheers! :-)

[burger]

If you seriously have to ask that question then you need to do a little more research before camping after a successful hunt ..... All I can say is WOW to some of the comments when it comes to anyone in authority ! This is not directed at the comments that get it !

What I am speaking about is what is the difference between a cooler of "unattended" food vs an animal hanging in camp. Wasn't a slag against anyone nor the authorities but rather I think a valid question from the person who originally asked. I am very familiar with camping after a successful hunt.

Maybe next time since by your comment you are well versed in what I asked ,rather than beat down maybe share your obvious vast wealth of knowledge with all of us.

[f350ps]

If you seriously have to ask that question then you need to do a little more research before camping after a successful hunt ..... All I can say is WOW to some of the comments when it comes to anyone in authority ! This is not directed at the comments that get it !
I'd love to know how you deal with fresh meat hanging in camp, lord knows I sure as hell don't wanna get in trouble! K

[Dannybuoy]

I'd love to know how you deal with fresh meat hanging in camp, lord knows I sure as hell don't wanna get in trouble! K

Sure I'll play along with you and Burger .... How about "hanging " the game for starters .... or do you leave it laying around on the ground with your open cooler and boxes of grub ??
The only trouble I see you getting into is jumping into a CO / Cop bashing rant with the trolls .

[Dannybuoy]

What I am speaking about is what is the difference between a cooler of "unattended" food vs an animal hanging in camp. Wasn't a slag against anyone nor the authorities but rather I think a valid question from the person who originally asked. I am very familiar with camping after a successful hunt.

Maybe next time since by your comment you are well versed in what I asked ,rather than beat down maybe share your obvious vast wealth of knowledge with all of us.
My take on your comment Was slagging the CO's by comparing slob hunter/campers to someone that had a kill hanging ...... IMO part of the C O's job is also to protect the wildlife which could possibly be put down because of encounters with slob/careless hunter/campers .... If that wasn't your intention then I was wrong to include you with the anti - authority mob that go off every chance they get on this site ... I find them amusing but every once in a while its good to let them know how goofy they are .

[burger]

Sure I'll play along with you and Burger .... How about "hanging " the game for starters .... or do you leave it laying around on the ground with your open cooler and boxes of grub ??
The only trouble I see you getting into is jumping into a CO / Cop bashing rant with the trolls .

I have no reason to "play along with". All I asked ,as well as the poster who originally asked the question ,per the rules is how is hanging game in camp ANY different than a cooler of food. While I am not in camp they both could be considered unsecured as I am not there. They both would be considered an attractant, hence why I felt it was an acceptable question.

33.1 (1) A person must not

(a) intentionally feed or attempt to feed dangerous wildlife, or
(b) provide, leave or place an attractant in, on or about any land or premises with the intent of attracting dangerous wildlife.
(2) A person must not leave or place an attractant in, on or about any land or premises where there are or where there are likely to be people, in a manner in which the attractant could
(a) attract dangerous wildlife to the land or premises, and
(b) be accessible to dangerous wildlife

[burger]

My take on your comment Was slagging the CO's by comparing slob hunter/campers to someone that had a kill hanging ...... IMO part of the C O's job is also to protect the wildlife which could possibly be put down because of encounters with slob/careless hunter/campers .... If that wasn't your intention then I was wrong to include you with the anti - authority mob that go off every chance they get on this site ... I find them amusing but every once in a while its good to let them know how goofy they are .

Sounds good. I actually thought it was a good question to ask the CO who wrote the ticket. Really is no difference other than you hope to be able to hang the game high enough as to inhibit animals from getting to it. Not always possible as we all know. Both attract which is what I think the ticket would be addressing.

I don't want to bash authority ,but like the mobs you speak of, we all should be able to question rationales of the authorities and be able to tell them how goofy they are!

[Dannybuoy]

Sounds good. I actually thought it was a good question to ask the CO who wrote the ticket. Really is no difference other than you hope to be able to hang the game high enough as to inhibit animals from getting to it. Not always possible as we all know. Both attract which is what I think the ticket would be addressing
Yes , But given the area (Pemberton) and the amount of slob campers ( hunters or not ) that the CO's must encounter during a season , I figure it must have been one heck of a messy camp to warrant a charge ... and I would guess that photo's were taken to back it up . That's likely why it was a "just pay the fine" and be done .

[SPEYMAN]

assume--makes an ass out of u and me. I believe there was a trailer involved. Not every police officer or co. is a great guy. Most do a good job. But there is an old saying, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". Every one deserves to be treated with respect and on an equal basis. COs must have cause for searching any ones camp, they cannot just walk in and search any more than a police officer can. They must have a reasonable cause.

[Ranger95]

Sure I'll play along with you and Burger .... How about "hanging " the game for starters .... or do you leave it laying around on the ground with your open cooler and boxes of grub ??
The only trouble I see you getting into is jumping into a CO / Cop bashing rant with the trolls .

why don't you just answer the question - sounds like the only troll here is you!

If a co can write tickets for unsecured cooler boxes - then it dosent take a genius to figure out what he is going to do about budy's deer / elk / moose carcass swinging in the tree... So tell us Dannybuoy'o what's the law say?

if you think that's authority bashing then give your head a shake......

[Dannybuoy]

why don't you just answer the question - sounds like the only troll here is you!

If a co can write tickets for unsecured cooler boxes - then it dosent take a genius to figure out what he is going to do about budy's deer / elk / moose carcass swinging in the tree... So tell us Dannybuoy'o what's the law say?

if you think that's authority bashing then give your head a shake......

Another Troll eh ? As Burger and I seem to be on the same page as far as the differences between harvested game and leaving food laying around , that would make you the "odd" man out . If you didn't understand that or how I already answered that question , have another toke on the ol hookah and write something else .
You are right about one thing , it doesn't take a genius to figure out what he will do about game hanging in the tree ..... nothing !
Speyman , I disagree about everyone being treated equal and with respect ... I wouldn't respect or treat obnoxious or arrogant campers the same as respectful campers if in that position ... would you ? Not saying that they were that but just pointing out the opposite ends of the spectrum .
I just find it hilarious that its the same guys that seem to have trouble with the authorities and its it definitely the same guys that jump on the bashing bandwagon or feeling the need to defend them . They are trolling .... I'm just playing along .

[BearStump]

I think that sometimes CO's need to be reminded that "reasonable" needs to be part of their decision making process. Usually it's the newer ones with less experience that take their job to the letter of the law without excersizing "reason".

I was camped a couple years back at Kananaskis Lake. My brother was in the next campsite over. After dinner he and his wife popped over to our site to pour a drink and they were 40 feet from their own picnic table, with our trailer between.
They get back to their site 10 minutes later to find a $175 fine on the table and their cooler gone. The CO left the address where the cooler could be picked up and the fine paid.
The problem here was that it really didn't make sense to argue or fight the fine. There was over $150 worth of food in that cooler that would have gone to waste and it would have cost over $80 in gas to drive to the nearest town to replace it. The fine was the cheapest solution. And in my opinion was issued unreasonably. All the CO would have had to do was ask the campers next door (us) if they had seen the occupants of the site and problem would have been solved but instead they toss around $175 fines like halloween candy.
These are the kind of moves that fuel the 'anti law enforcement' type people, and shed a dim light on authority.

[Good2bCanadian]

COs are not out there to be your friends.

Ever since we got stopped by an undercover CO on the Vedder talking us up like another fisherman, making up stories of the fish he caught for himself, then after a few minutes he showed us his badge. I don't trust them.

I have nothing to hide, and tell the truth and appreciate the jobs the COs do. But I don't kid myself that these guys are our buddy's out there. If they can dream up a charge, they will.

Act legally, give COs respect, but just know that they are against us and are looking to lay charges if they can.

JMO

[Dannybuoy]

I think that sometimes CO's need to be reminded that "reasonable" needs to be part of their decision making process. Usually it's the newer ones with less experience that take their job to the letter of the law without excersizing "reason".

I was camped a couple years back at Kananaskis Lake. My brother was in the next campsite over. After dinner he and his wife popped over to our site to pour a drink and they were 40 feet from their own picnic table, with our trailer between.
They get back to their site 10 minutes later to find a $175 fine on the table and their cooler gone. The CO left the address where the cooler could be picked up and the fine paid.
The problem here was that it really didn't make sense to argue or fight the fine. There was over $150 worth of food in that cooler that would have gone to waste and it would have cost over $80 in gas to drive to the nearest town to replace it. The fine was the cheapest solution. And in my opinion was issued unreasonably. All the CO would have had to do was ask the campers next door (us) if they had seen the occupants of the site and problem would have been solved but instead they toss around $175 fines like halloween candy.
These are the kind of moves that fuel the 'anti law enforcement' type people, and shed a dim light on authority.

I agree with you on that .... as that's the way I would go about it . It sounds like the way a by-law officer works .... an expired meter = ticket . I think there is a lot less leniency in parks and sensitive area's
A little good-will could go a long way though ....

[caddisguy]

I think there's a lot of generalization going on. I wouldn't lump all CO's together, just like I wouldn't lump all hunters together.

Saying things like "All CO's abuse their search powers and are always looking for any little reason to fine you" or "All you guys who talk bad about CO's are just anti-authority" (I'm paraphrasing slightly here, but that seems to be the general tone of a number or posts) kind of dumbs down the issue.

I think the main takeaways here are:

* CO's have the power to search without warrant if there is reason to believe there may be harvested fish or game. There does not need to be evidence or harvested fish or game. Reason to believe that a person may be involved with fishing or hunting is sufficient to satisfy the courts that a warrantless search is permitted.

* All CO's are not created equal. Just like unethical hunters exist, unethical law enforcement personnel do exist. Both are CO's and hunters are human, capable of unethical behaviour.

* There are two sides to every story. Just like a LEO can get creative with laws and make up fines, hunters can make up stories about CO's. And in every case, there is always two sides to a story.

I do not agree with the warrantless searches--I'm mostly referring to the vehicle searches that I have experienced but I would include tent/dwelling/person searches--and I do believe that it is contrary to our Charter. In most cases, there needs to be evidence of a crime taking place for a warrantless search. Hunting/fishing is not a crime and alone should not be grounds to search. Sadly, hunting or fishing alone is enough to satisfy the courts of a warrantless search. I also dislike seeing RCMP team up with CO's, so the CO can start the search while the RCMP can "hang out" while he searches. The CO should need to have evidence that illegal harvesting was taking place before conducting a warrantless search. This is not anti-authority, but rather a common expectation of basic freedoms in a first world country. Suggesting that concerns over basic freedoms and warrantless searches is anti-authority is an authoritarianistic stance.

All sorts of weird stuff can happen while we're hunting. A tree might fall on you. Thieves might rob your camp. A predatory bear might attack you. A predatory officer might charge you with unsafe ammo transportation for having a magazine in the center console. Odds are none of that will happen, but the only way to avoid all the possible hazards of hunting is to stay at home.

[Ranger95]

Another Troll eh ? As Burger and I seem to be on the same page as far as the differences between harvested game and leaving food laying around , that would make you the "odd" man out . If you didn't understand that or how I already answered that question , have another toke on the ol hookah and write something else .
You are right about one thing , it doesn't take a genius to figure out what he will do about game hanging in the tree ..... nothing !
.

You need help Bro' - call your doctor and book an appointment!!!!

[russm86]

More on topic, I have been stopped by a CO at least once a year since I have been hunting and the COs have always been quite friendly. I'm straight forward and answer questions when asked. I give respect when I'm shown the same.

We were camping in region 5 a few years ago and had a couple deer hanging in camp. One day we were stopped by a CO on the main road headed back to camp, he asked for licenses and asked us to show him the firearms were unloaded, all checked out. He then asked where we were from and where we had camped, we told him the rec site on the one lake, and he asked if it was camp site #x with the 2 deer and we said yes. He said he had checked them and everything looked good and to have a great remainder of our trip. When we got back to camp we found he had actually left a signed "game inspection/certification" form for each of the deer and said it was proof of a CO inspection and the deer were legal so that we could then remove evidence of sex and species etc from the deer instead of leaving it attached to transport it home. We opted to just leave it though as we ended up with another deer and didn't want to make things confusing.

[Dannybuoy]

why don't you just answer the question - sounds like the only troll here is you!

If a co can write tickets for unsecured cooler boxes - then it dosent take a genius to figure out what he is going to do about budy's deer / elk / moose carcass swinging in the tree... So tell us Dannybuoy'o what's the law say?

if you think that's authority bashing then give your head a shake......

Ooops Ranger95 if you read russm's post there is another option for what the CO's are going to do when they see game hanging in camp ....or do you want to call BS on that as it contradicts what you want to portray happens ?
Now who needs to give their head a shake and book an appointment ??:mrgreen:

[Big Lew]

There you go...that should answer some questions.
In all my 54 years of hunting I've only been stopped or checked out while 'in the field'
about 4 times and about a dozen times when fishing. I have gone through many road checks
though as well stopping at the Cache Creek compulsory game check several times each
year when it was open. I can only think of one incident that I considered 'negative' and
the individual wasn't a CO, but a university student with volunteer badge checking bird
hunters near Harrison Bay. He had very little firearm knowledge and lacked diplomacy.
He demanded to see my shotgun while I was in a legal shooting area. I refused to hand
it over until he identified himself and it was unloaded. When he began checking it out he
hurt his fingers when putting them in the open chamber and pulling the trigger. He
learned his first lesson. I wouldn't give him any live bullets, and as he didn't even have
anything to check for a 'plug', and after he fiddled around for awhile, I whacked off a
nearby branch and made him one, marking it so that he could use it for his next inspection.

[finngun]

caddisguy..../// A predatory officer might charge you with unsafe ammo transportation for having a magazine in the center console.//// really??? then any CO can write hundreds violation tickets every day...why they don't do it then?:confused:

[caddisguy]

caddisguy..../// A predatory officer might charge you with unsafe ammo transportation for having a magazine in the center console.//// really??? then any CO can write hundreds violation tickets every day...why they don't do it then?:confused:

It's rare but they do. Police in Ontario were testing testing to see what they could get away with under 86(1) -- the general catchall -- of the Firearms Act.

86. (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, uses, carries, handles, ships, transports or stores a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition in a careless manner or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons.

Some case examples can be found here: http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/legal_storage_and_transport.html

You only need to be accused of doing something "careless" which is not defined, but rather left up to the opinion of a officer involved.

As far as I know, there were no convictions in the Ontario cases but one must spend a lot of time and money to fight the charge and get their firearms back.

The answer to why they don't always do it? Because as mentioned, most LEO's are ethical and are not trying to serve an authoritarianistic agenda and seeing how much they can push the envelope to victimize people.

I wouldn't let the slim possibility that I might run into a bad apple stop me from carrying ammo in my pockets/console/cup-holder, etc. My point was simply that bad apples do exist, but it is rare and one is probably more likely to be attacked by a bear.

[BlackOwL]

Brother inlaw had the local conservation officer deliver a fine from the Princeton conservation officer for get this "defecating in the woods" that right shitting in the bush!!

1200.00 dollars!!! Seem they ran his plate and served the fine here.

I asked if the guys were being pigs NOPE they had dug a pit toilet and filled it in when they left!!!

People the province is broke and this shit is only going to get worse!!!!!!!!

My anal sphincter is in shock :shock:

[Singleshotneeded]

A perfect example of what I was referring to in my post about some complete s-heads managing to slither past the people screening the job applicants... The great majority of police and game wardens are fine folks, but a few aren't, and we have to tell their superiors about it so they can be fired or their attitudes changed! Keeping quiet accomplishes NOTHING!

[Singleshotneeded]

COs are not out there to be your friends.

Ever since we got stopped by an undercover CO on the Vedder talking us up like another fisherman, making up stories of the fish he caught for himself, then after a few minutes he showed us his badge. I don't trust them.

I have nothing to hide, and tell the truth and appreciate the jobs the COs do. But I don't kid myself that these guys are our buddy's out there. If they can dream up a charge, they will.

Act legally, give COs respect, but just know that they are against us and are looking to lay charges if they can.

JMO

Don't know about your CO, but years ago up north we knew game wardens that hunted and fished in their spare time...he may not have been lying about catching fish...maybe he just thought he'd chat with you guys after seeing you were fishing legally?

[Singleshotneeded]

caddisguy..../// A predatory officer might charge you with unsafe ammo transportation for having a magazine in the center console.//// really??? then any CO can write hundreds violation tickets every day...why they don't do it then?:confused:

Since when is it illegal to have a loaded mag in your centre console, not attached to your rifle??

[BCBRAD]

Smart phone on video in your shirt pocket, if you have issue with CO play back to his/her superior, escalate from there if warrented.

[Fisher-Dude]

Ever since we got stopped by an undercover CO on the Vedder talking us up like another fisherman, making up stories of the fish he caught for himself, then after a few minutes he showed us his badge. I don't trust them.



So someone using an effective enforcement approach to protect the resource we all enjoy is untrustworthy. Got it.




but just know that they are against us



If you're against protecting our fish and wildlife, then the COs are against you. That makes sense now.


I see a number of people who have a problem with authority. I'll hazzard a wild guess that the vast majority are under 35 and are spoiled brats with self-entitlement issues.

How DARE a CO tell me I can't do that? Yep, time for you kids to get a high-country tune-up and learn to appreciate the men and women who are there to protect the resources we have.

[Iron Glove]

I've only ever had one check by a C.O. and it was simple and polite, no problems.
Not suggesting anyone here might have an attitude problem but I've always found that if I have a friendly, helpful attitude towards a C.O., Police, Proctologist, who ever, it all goes good.
Son was back of his place a few years ago fishing the Similkameen when a Gent came up, struck up a pleasant conversation about fishing then introduced himself as the new C.O. in town. Asked if he had a fishing liscence and Son said "yes." C.O. wished him well and went on his way.
Son reels in his line, hikes into town, stops at the Outdoor Store and immediately bought his liscence.

[skibum]

I see a number of people who have a problem with authority. I'll hazzard a wild guess that the vast majority are under 35 and are spoiled brats with self-entitlement issues.




Na, I would say it is the other way around - over 35.

[caddisguy]

Since when is it illegal to have a loaded mag in your centre console, not attached to your rifle??

It's not, but guys have been charged for it under 86(1)... not convicted, but the process is often quite a severe punishment.

Not something to worry about... the context was just an example to demonstrate that though most law enforcement do a good job and serve the people, there is the odd nutjob that just wants to push the envelope and try to victimize good people. You get psychos in all walk of life.

[Dannybuoy]

Great to see the pro side stepping into this as well . dwayne26 : No explanation as to why a C O would act in that manner ... curious how you knew his name was Greg ?
they have their surnames on their uniforms . Very easy to know who you are dealing with that way

[goatdancer]

It's rare but they do. Police in Ontario were testing testing to see what they could get away with under 86(1) -- the general catchall -- of the Firearms Act.

86. (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, uses, carries, handles, ships, transports or stores a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition in a careless manner or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons.

Some case examples can be found here: http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/legal_storage_and_transport.html

You only need to be accused of doing something "careless" which is not defined, but rather left up to the opinion of a officer involved.

As far as I know, there were no convictions in the Ontario cases but one must spend a lot of time and money to fight the charge and get their firearms back.

The answer to why they don't always do it? Because as mentioned, most LEO's are ethical and are not trying to serve an authoritarianistic agenda and seeing how much they can push the envelope to victimize people.

I wouldn't let the slim possibility that I might run into a bad apple stop me from carrying ammo in my pockets/console/cup-holder, etc. My point was simply that bad apples do exist, but it is rare and one is probably more likely to be attacked by a bear.

What else would you expect in Ontario? Lots of examples of stupidity over there.

[Darksith]

I have never had an issue with a CO...I have only been stopped twice. First time he looked at my license, noted that I had tagged a moose (immy season), asked a few questions about it, then told me I forgot to punch the date on my tag and that I should do so. No big deal, he really wasn't concerned about that. The second time the CO asked to see my gun, I picked it up and showed him the chamber, then my floor plate popped open (must not of closed it properly). He asked me to step out of my truck, I assume he expected to see my bullets all over my seat or floor like I dumped them when I saw him driving towards us, he didn't...he asked me where my bullets were, I tapped my jeans pocket and said "right here in my pocket" he thanked me and that was that. No issues with them, but it is their job to question you, and even put you under a bit of perceived pressure to see if you will falter...not that that is gonna lead to a conviction but there are a lot of idiots out there that probably make up some pretty crazy stories to cover their arses.

[Stresd]

It's not, but guys have been charged for it under 86(1)... not convicted, but the process is often quite a severe punishment.

Not something to worry about... the context was just an example to demonstrate that though most law enforcement do a good job and serve the people, there is the odd nutjob that just wants to push the envelope and try to victimize good people. You get psychos in all walk of life.


Legal but could sure screw up a nice trip. Example and explanation

http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/legal_storage_and_transport.html

[Dannybuoy]

Not sure how relevant this would be Strestd as it has been 16 years since that happened and in Ontario as well ?

[J_T]

For the most part CO's are good outdoor people. I usually see those who got in to the CO service for a love of hunting, tend to stop being hunters.

Having said that, while I agree most CO's are good guys, And I fully expect that respect is due to them for the work they do - you still do run across CO's that forget their purpose or who have a slightly altered vision of their role in this process. I've met such a CO, it took 2 years to resolve and in brief, he no longer works for the COS.

For me, if I require information I do not go to the CO. I'll find other sources. They are tasked with knowing so many regulations and various statutes that they often don't fully understand the intent of the law.

[HARDICAT]

Yes , But given the area (Pemberton) and the amount of slob campers ( hunters or not ) that the CO's must encounter during a season , I figure it must have been one heck of a messy camp to warrant a charge ... and I would guess that photo's were taken to back it up . That's likely why it was a "just pay the fine" and be done .
Come visit our camp any day It's clean tidy and in better shape when we left

[Drillbit]

^Hahaha!

You're lucky he didn't give you a "loaded firearm in/on a motor vehicle" after making you put your gun down on the hood!

[Tmax]

i think this thread started out as a little out of contex. i'm not that much of a hunter but everything i do revolves around spending time in the wilderness. it is good to be educated and aware of bad apples but my experiences have been great. in fact i usually go out of my way to run into CO's and get a feel of the area. perhaps times have changed and CO's are turning into wana be cops but i still yet to have seen it. of course i'm not naive and it always helps to be prepared particualrly knowing your rights if it does come down to it.

[huntcoop]

Perhaps Steve W can read through this mess and help shed some light.

[ultramafic]

I dont know who steve w is or how he might be able to shed light on this but it seems to me there may be a lot more to this story cause the OP has really given very little detail other than his camp and tent were apparently searched and he was fined for some unsecured food.... Oh and he is/was dealing with the RCMP..... Not sure what that means but i would hope that CO service is capable of handling a simple unsecured food ticket but who knows... We definitely dont from what has been posted on this thread, however there has been a lot of speculation...

that is apparent...

[Fisher-Dude]

We all know there are two sides to every story.

There was a guy a few weeks back on a FB group bitching that the COs unnecessarily delayed him for 20 minutes when he was being checked, and how he always followed the rules, no booze or drugs, blah, blah, blah. A quick glance at his FB photos shows him swilling beer while shooting ducks.

Food for thought.

[David]

I think that sometimes CO's need to be reminded that "reasonable" needs to be part of their decision making process. Usually it's the newer ones with less experience that take their job to the letter of the law without excersizing "reason".

I was camped a couple years back at Kananaskis Lake. My brother was in the next campsite over. After dinner he and his wife popped over to our site to pour a drink and they were 40 feet from their own picnic table, with our trailer between.
They get back to their site 10 minutes later to find a $175 fine on the table and their cooler gone. The CO left the address where the cooler could be picked up and the fine paid.
The problem here was that it really didn't make sense to argue or fight the fine. There was over $150 worth of food in that cooler that would have gone to waste and it would have cost over $80 in gas to drive to the nearest town to replace it. The fine was the cheapest solution. And in my opinion was issued unreasonably. All the CO would have had to do was ask the campers next door (us) if they had seen the occupants of the site and problem would have been solved but instead they toss around $175 fines like halloween candy.
These are the kind of moves that fuel the 'anti law enforcement' type people, and shed a dim light on authority.

And let me ask you an honest question... if the CO had done like you ask, what do you think the chances are that your brother would not leave food unattended the next day, or the next camping trip?

Sorry but I've been the enforcement officer in those situations. I've asked people to move their car, move themselves, not do something - basically I've been a polite person and asked them to correct their behaviour. In most cases, people do that one time. But the next day, the next event, the next whatever... guess who i had to ask to move, etc. again???

My experience was that people only changed their behaviour when there was a penalty attached. All being nice got me was the need to keep asking again and again. So I started writing more tickets.

Me.

[boilerroom]

Not debating the legitimacy of a ticket for unsecured cooler - I believe that a cooler without a lock left out where wildlife could get at it could be considered "unsecured".

Most of the act that someone else quoted seemed to do with search of person... I'd argue that if there was nobody in the camp, then it wasn't "occupied by hunters"...

Inspection of camps
91 An officer may inspect a camp occupied by a hunter or angler.

[Fisher-Dude]

"Occupied" can mean having all your shit there too, even if you're elsewhere. That is "control over activities" on that land. Some further definition is included in the Trespass Act. Don't get confused by the term "premises" as that can include land.


"occupier", in relation to premises, means

(a) if the premises are land, including enclosed land, foreshore and land covered by water, or are property described in paragraph (a) of the definition of "premises", a person entitled to maintain an action of trespass in respect of those premises,

(b) if the premises are property described in paragraph (b) or (c) of the definition of "premises", a person lawfully entitled to possession of those premises, and

(c) if the premises are water, a person described in paragraph (a) of this definition in relation to the land under the water,

and includes a person who

(d) has responsibility for and control over the condition of the premises or the activities there carried on, or

(e) has control over persons allowed to enter the premises;