Blood Trail??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

Thing is we have only his side of the story.
Now for your analogy. The neighbours kid repeatedly kicks his ball into your yard damaging your roses. You've spoken to him but disregards your request. Finnaly it happens again........what do you do?

---

My analogy wasn't exactly accurate. In order to be more in line with the OP's scenario, my property would have to be a vacant lot across town, the kid would be kicking the soccer ball around at his friend's house beside this vacant lot, and the cops would have been called by a guest of a neighbour who for some reason doesn't like kids playing soccer anywhere near this vacant lot.

You're right, we only have the OP's side of the story, but assuming he's telling the truth about everything the whole scenario is absolutely ridiculous.

I wouldn't dream of making an issue over someone taking a few steps onto my property to retrieve a downed deer. Yes, I suppose if I'd previously had to warn someone a few times about property lines then I might have a problem with it, but there's nothing in the OP's story to suggest that he's had any other issues than a vindictive jealous hunter on another property.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GW11

I wouldn't dream of making an issue over someone taking a few steps onto my property to retrieve a downed deer. Yes, I suppose if I'd previously had to warn someone a few times about property lines then I might have a problem with it, but there's nothing in the OP's story to suggest that he's had any other issues than a vindictive jealous hunter on another property.

---

"vindictive jealous hunter " What made him one in the eyes of the OP. Come on a person will color their story in the most favourable light to make it appear they had done nothing wrong.
Read over his account and you'll see the story is a little looped sided.
He states emphatically that he shot the deer on property he has permission to hunt on yet claims the property line on recouvery was a little unclear. Claims the property was vacant land but states it was posted along the road however not along the back.
Look not convicting the guy however won't be endorsing him until all the facts and both sides of the story come forth.

Well - just let me add this - down here any good lawyer will tell you that guilty or innocent don't talk to the cops - anything you say can be used against you and we are advised to take the 5th - most often a person gets themselves in trouble by saying things which can be turned around to make it good like you did something illegal - I don't know if you Canadians have that right or not - to remain silent - let the cops try to figure things out on their own - which often times they can't without your help -

Lately there has been a push among citizens to put the cops in their place by requiring them to respect individual rights - many people are using cameras to record contacts with the police - interesting times

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoePa

Well - just let me add this - down here any good lawyer will tell you that guilty or innocent don't talk to the cops - anything you say can be used against you and we are advised to take the 5th - most often a person gets themselves in trouble by saying things which can be turned around to make it good like you did something illegal - I don't know if you Canadians have that right or not - to remain silent - let the cops try to figure things out on their own - which often times they can't without your help -

Lately there has been a push among citizens to put the cops in their place by requiring them to respect individual rights - many people are using cameras to record contacts with the police - interesting times

---

Naw up here the cops are using body cameras to record the moronic actions of people. Cops have no vested interest in pinning something on someone who has done nothing wrong. If they twist your words around its because initially you've done something. Jails are full of people who claim they have done nothing wrong. Not one though that says yup I did it. Funny how that is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

Naw up here the cops are using body cameras to record the moronic actions of people. Cops have no vested interest in pinning something on someone who has done nothing wrong. If they twist your words around its because initially you've done something. Jails are full of people who claim they have done nothing wrong. Not one though that says yup I did it. Funny how that is.

---

Sure.... Just ask David Milgaard or Robert Baltovich etc.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

"vindictive jealous hunter " What made him one in the eyes of the OP. Come on a person will color their story in the most favourable light to make it appear they had done nothing wrong.
Read over his account and you'll see the story is a little looped sided.
He states emphatically that he shot the deer on property he has permission to hunt on yet claims the property line on recouvery was a little unclear. Claims the property was vacant land but states it was posted along the road however not along the back.
Look not convicting the guy however won't be endorsing him until all the facts and both sides of the story come forth.

---

We'll probably never know all of the facts but I believe his story for a couple of reasons. As a bowhunter, he would know that other bowhunters would likely disapprove of taking such an iffy shot on such a small parcel of land. He could have coloured that part of the story a little more in his favour but he didn't. Nor did he have to post the story at all. I can't see too many people posting a story like that on a public forum while knowing the whole time that they are in the wrong.

Or, maybe his story just hit a nerve with me. Being harassed by a jealous hunter or group can be worse than being harassed by antis because they know exactly how to screw you over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GW11

We'll probably never know all of the facts but I believe his story for a couple of reasons. As a bowhunter, he would know that other bowhunters would likely disapprove of taking such an iffy shot on such a small parcel of land. He could have coloured that part of the story a little more in his favour but he didn't. Nor did he have to post the story at all. I can't see too many people posting a story like that on a public forum while knowing the whole time that they are in the wrong.

Or, maybe his story just hit a nerve with me. Being harassed by a jealous hunter or group can be worse than being harassed by antis because they know exactly how to screw you over.

---

The purpose was to mount a plausible defense.
you are absolutely right. In another light though he quickly justified that iffy shot by stating it was lethal. The ends justifying the means? Also I question his justification for retrieving the deer because it was vacant land. If he truly believed it was vacant land than he should have no problem hunting it. He states with absolute certainty that he shot it on land he had permission to hunt yet is ify on the boundary? That should not be an issue if he felt it was truly vacant however made a good excuse though.

The main thing that irks me is the vilification of those that may be also just enforcing their right too.

No person should be so harshly viewed for reporting a concern to the land owner.
Land Owners should not feel vilified for reporting suspected illegal acts on their property.
The MNR should not be belittled for investigating such incidents.

I took it to mean that he knew the land was owned by someone else and he didn't have permission to hunt it but that it was 'vacant" of buildings or any other type of development.

My interpretation is the same as Rugger's. The other property is owned by someone else but the OP doesn't know who it is. No buildings or anything on the property. "Vacant" in terms of dwellings or buildings but still private property.

The other hunter is hunting a third property (from what I gather) and believes the OP doesn't have permission to be on either of the first two. It doesn't sound like any of the the landowners have been involved yet at all and the MNR is acting solely on the other hunter's complaint.

That's why I find this whole scenario so outrageous. It's more than possible that the owner of the property where the deer died couldn't care less about a guy stepping over the line to retrieve a deer.

It's also possible (as fff says) that the OP isn't being truthful in his account to us but I don't see what he has to gain by posting his story here. A few stories about blood trails or lack thereof? Sounds more to me like he can't believe this has happened and is hoping a few people will tell him they've had similar experiences and everything turned out OK.

I think he'll find that with a response of that size, 3 trucks, canine unit, etc., he'll be charged with something, right or wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GW11

My interpretation is the same as Rugger's. The other property is owned by someone else but the OP doesn't know who it is. No buildings or anything on the property. "Vacant" in terms of dwellings or buildings but still private property.

The other hunter is hunting a third property (from what I gather) and believes the OP doesn't have permission to be on either of the first two. It doesn't sound like any of the the landowners have been involved yet at all and the MNR is acting solely on the other hunter's complaint.

That's why I find this whole scenario so outrageous. It's more than possible that the owner of the property where the deer died couldn't care less about a guy stepping over the line to retrieve a deer.


.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sparky494

... I wouldn't have said anything to him had I known he was going to run to the other property owner and rile him up. I didn't think anything of it as I had felt I had done nothing wrong. . Basically a guy ratted me out to a property owner that I didn't know, and had never met.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

For your peace of mind its the land owner that initiated the investigation.