CO activity around Marlbourough forest lately

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rippin_355

Just so everyone is on the same page. If I was parked and out hunting. And a CO peeked in my locked truck and saw a camo hat. They do not have the right to break in and "inspect" it.

Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk

---

Nobody mentioned anything about "breaking in". Where did you get that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rippin_355

Just so everyone is on the same page. If I was parked and out hunting. And a CO peeked in my locked truck and saw a camo hat. They do not have the right to break in and "inspect" it.

Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk

---

A camo hat in a truck is not reasonable grounds to believe any fish or game are in the truck.

Also, inspection is administrative. They can't break in to conduct an inspection under any circumstances.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

He gets payed to be there. We don't so even when we are right it costs the public to prove it. Some poor sap making an hourly wage has to go to court to "deflate" that ego, and losses at least one day of work plus the expense of gas, parking, and maybe even a lawyer.

---

Yeh we all know a CO gets paid to be there that is why its important they be checked when they over extend their authority.I do not support them going on fishing expeditions as is evident from what I wrote in post 36 and 34.Maybe you did not read these and what you wrote above was out of context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Yeh we all know a CO gets paid to be there that is why its important they be checked when they over extend their authority.I do not support them going on fishing expeditions as is evident from what I wrote in post 36 and 34.Maybe you did not read these and what you wrote above was out of context.

---

Almost every time you speak to a CO, at a road side stop, etc., their line of questioning is a "fishing trip" in my opinion. I've no time for that nonsense and wont play their game.

If their conversations lead them to detect a poacher what's wrong with that? As long as their conversations may also lead them to believe someone has done nothing wrong!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redd foxx

If their conversations lead them to detect a poacher what's wrong with that? As long as their conversations may also lead them to believe someone has done nothing wrong!!

---

Most criminals/poachers know from experience to keep their traps shut and tend not to incriminate themselves and actually know their "rights" better than the average hunter.The law abiding hunter can easily talk themselves into a charge for a minor infraction.If you have done nothing wrong and they have no reason to engage you in a conversation its safer not to have that banter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Yeh we all know a CO gets paid to be there that is why its important they be checked when they over extend their authority.I do not support them going on fishing expeditions as is evident from what I wrote in post 36 and 34.Maybe you did not read these and what you wrote above was out of context.

---

I did read your posts. No my post is not our of context, because as you said the CO who is over extending his/her authority is under oath in the court room, but still gets paid to be there. That court date costs the accused money even when they win. How many COs/Leo's count on the accused paying a ticket versus the expense of fighting it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

How many COs/Leo's count on the accused paying a ticket versus the expense of fighting it?

---

A lot! Northern CO's write dubious tickets all the time knowing full well someone from Oshawa isn't going to travel to Timmins or Sudbury to attend court. Like Gilroy said,it's better not to have that conversation. More hunters have inadvertently gotten into trouble with their own big mouths than by any other way. Zip it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

He gets payed to be there. We don't so even when we are right it costs the public to prove it. Some poor sap making an hourly wage has to go to court to "deflate" that ego, and losses at least one day of work plus the expense of gas, parking, and maybe even a lawyer.

---

I have a problem with that comment but it's not uncommon coming from law enforcement or their supporters.

You assume that everyone who is charged is of low income and fits a certain demographic. That's called a stereotyping.

I'm a retired autoworker who made big bucks and my wife is a medical professional. We both are entitled to numerous weeks of PAID HOLIDAYS, LIEU DAYS AND SICK DAYS. I've had a few tickets in which case I would either take a PAID HOLIDAY or I have hired a paralegal to "deflate" that ego....and have and WON.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

A camo hat in a truck is not reasonable grounds to believe any fish or game are in the truck.

Also, inspection is administrative. They can't break in to conduct an inspection under any circumstances.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

---

Oh, I beg to differ. Read my original post about getting stoped by a CO in 1998. He did state that he stopped me because, "you're wearing a camo jacket".