Printable View
Well no deer on cam today just a couple pheasant hunters trespassing. If you are these people STAY OFF PRIVATE PROPERTY!!!
PS Thanks for wiping my SD card but you forgot the pics of yourselves!!!!
Attachment 33686Attachment 33687
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...ae02ed79fd.jpghttp://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...8c2de372d7.jpg
Yep.....as long as there are short busses there will be trespassers. Where I hunt I have been fortunate as there is no pubic access from the back of the 2 farms but on the other side of the road we get guys wandering in quite often. The land owner (a buddy of mine) tells me to teat the land like it is my own and I do......whenever there I confront, question and politely say PFO (Please F&*K Off). This year we fenced the back of his south bush, put up no trespassing signs, an all three sides of the bush and chained the drive with two big concrete blocks and a locked chain. It will not stop trespassers......but it might keep the meek and mild out.
I do love the excuses I get when they are confronted - one guy insisted to my buddy (who owns one of the farms he was on) that he has permission to be there!! Only when he realized he was duped did he revert to the "I'm on a public road allowance......I am not trespassing" - - that did not end well for him LOL.
Send them to the the authorities, so there is documentation if something happens again.
on a side note, those pics are really clean, what's your cam? (i don't mean to highjack, i'd love to step into these guys for you)
its a browning recon something or other. so it looks like 4 people they drive a white vehicle...this is all private land im in 94B all farms. way to go dad showing junior how to tresspass. And the decency to wipe my SD card but not their pics lmao!!!
Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
How far from a road do you need to be to hunt? That road looks awfully close, but it's hard to make out.
its a driveway for the turbine not a road its on private property regardless and the drive way is 80 yards from the camera which is where my pretty clearly visible ground blind is sitting as well
Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
how did they wipe your sd card?
Pop it in a smart phone.. and its done... easy...Quote:
Originally Posted by bowj
Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
Would that leave some sort of digital fingerprint on the card? I'm not up to date on phone technology, obviously, but it would be handy if you could find out who owned the device that wiped the card.Quote:
Originally Posted by topher
Possibly... but its out of my tehcnical skills.. i doubt it would though.Quote:
Originally Posted by GW11
Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
Maybe if it were a micro SDQuote:
Originally Posted by topher
I have an sd reader that plugs into my phoneQuote:
Originally Posted by LowbanksArcher
Heres an example of a similar one.
https://www.amazon.ca/gp/aw/d/B015S7WX7M/ref=mp
Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
be thankful they didn't just steal the camera!
yea thankfully they didnt take the camera. good thing there only pheasant hunters and probably wont be back. If so I hope they come back when Im there and I can call the OPP on them
Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
Are you sure they didn't have permission,too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deer Wrastler
definately did not have permission which is why they tried to wipe my SD card. Last week that camera had over 700 pictures on the card. Today only 5.
Hard to believe someone would trespass to hunt beside those ugly mills! Poor guys, they must be desperate!
That's pathetic. Is there any way to hide the camera or add another to capture license plates?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deer Wrastler
There is recovery software you can use. I've used it to pull files off a couple old memory cards from digital cameras I used to own. Key is the physical memory can't have been overwritten. You might be able to recover something.
You do realize if you call the cops they will take your report but do absolutely nothing without involving the actual owner who would also have to appear in court for charges to stick.
Many owners don't want the hassle.
This opinion is not accurate as the Trespass to Property Act does not make mention of the "actual owner" in its wording it defines "occupier" and what is mean by a occupier. Almost anybody with the permission of the owner can act as an agent for the property.Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsman
For instance officers in a police service can and do act as agents for all types of premises from the Rogers Centre to the Eatons Centre.
If the poster has been given authority over the premises then he can act for the owner and keep unwanted trespassers out.Proof that the property was posted private by signs,verbally is sufficient.
Now this is the small fine Trespass to Property Act. Police or CO,s can use the much more powerful and bigger fines in the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, which has a reverse onus on the trespasser to prove they had permission to enter said property.
If you had an experience with a Police officer who did not act because you were not the owner then he/she was not doing their job or simply did not know the law.There is a lot of the around these days.Personally I would always try for a CO first.Call the local district office,find out who run,s that beat,call them up with your concerns and very often you will get a direct C phone number from them.
its not about laying charges its just to get them off posted private property. Having the OPP show up while they are there sends the message pretty clear. their car was parked right next to a no tresspassing sign either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsman
An "occupier" is someone who lives there or rents the property. Owner may also be the occupier. As in some one who occupies the property and just not someone who has permission to hunt there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
As for being an agent for the owner yes this can be done but it will require proof in court that they are acting as a legal agent. This will involve the owner.
If the owner has the cops knocking on his door numerous times over complaints by someone he has given permission to hunt the property that permission may quickly disappear.
Before going that route I would ask the owners opinion before involving the police.
My uncle owns it so Im not worried about permission. I booted a guy from there last year after he threatened my brother and he hasnt been back.
Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
For court purposes if you have been designated by the owners to act as their agents a simple letter is all the Justice of the Peace needs to see.For instance Toronto Police don,t have to require the owners of the Rogers Center to attend court if they have thrown out a person and gave a trespass ticket to them.I have dealt with this act for over 40 years and have been in court on scores of cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsman
Trespass to Property Act
[COLOR=#505050]“occupier” includes,
[COLOR=#505050](a) a person who is in physical possession of premises, or
[COLOR=#505050](b) a person who has responsibility for and control over the condition of premises or the activities there carried on, or control over persons allowed to enter the premises,
[COLOR=#505050]even if there is more than one occupier of the same premises; (“occupant”)
A hunter who has obtained permission fits into sub (b) very easily and a letter giving him agent status would all the court needs.
Remember the trespasser would have to give a defense or offer an excuse for being on the premises.If you dont have anything to hang your hat on your toast.
Correct answer ! Common for those who have actually dealt with the Act in court !Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
What is written in the act and what happens at the Rogers Centre may not be 100% reality north of the city.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
I co-own several thousand acres and the OPP decided to start giving out tickets on our private road under the off road vehicle act.
We took it to court and won and the OPP appealed it and they won. We appealed and won in a higher court.
Fast forward, after we won in the higher court the OPP,s official stance was " you are only occupiers of the land therefore if you call about trespassers we won't be laying charges "
Toronto Police have a vested interest laying trespassing charges in the Rogers Centre .... Keep the pay duty flowing.
Good luck getting the OPP to lay a charge on your 100 acres on a long weekend in the summer.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Am I reading correctly that the OPP charged you for riding on your private road on your property? That IS f***ed up!Quote:
Originally Posted by stragglelake
Well I think there might be a little more to your story than you are telling us,why would you get tickets on private land?Quote:
Originally Posted by stragglelake
Why did the OPP make reference to Trespassers after the appeals?
Why did the OPP decide to start giving out tickets in the first place.
If you had read my previous offerings on here I did recommend a CO would be my first phone call not the OPP for the precise reason you mentioned.
Toronto Police do have a vested interest in the Rogers Centre and this is the Act they use.I used the same Trespass to Property Act for 16 years to help keep out of the Public Housing Projects undesirables who did not live there,drug dealers,robbers,....
I am well aware of what works in the countryside as I spend 8 mths of year up there and have for the past 10 years,I have also been in the area over 20 years while working during vacation times.
Your message seems kinds mixed up because first you complain about getting unwanted police attention and you end with telling me they will not attend,which way is up.
They did not charge me, but yes they charged other people with different offences. That is when we picked one ticket and ran it through 3 different courts to get the not guilty verdict we wanted.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
$50,000 later !
They believed that because they could access the road that the off road vehicle act applied.
The road is 100% private and 100% maintained by us.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If my message seems mixed up it's because of the way the OPP handled it. Hence the final not guilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
I never complained about unwanted attention unless you mean getting unwarranted tickets.
You would need to ask the OPP why they said they would not give out trespassing charges. I would only be speculating to why. But I have a good guess.
I was not challenging what you said in your post, I actually agreed with it but was adding my experience and opinion to it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A lot more questions than answers for me on that reply to Trimmer.If you have a private road why not gate the road and post it private.
Why would you wait to get a slew of tickets (allegations uk to us) and then decide to fight just one.
Why would it cost $50,000 to fight a Provincial ticket.
I think after the very first ticket issued I would be down at the local detachment, officer in charge,explain the land is private and demand the ticket gets withdrawn/ and or complain about the officers conduct.Something very wrong with this story.
P.S. Just saw your post,maybe if you explain what happened from ticket #1 it could be figured out.
http://www.millerthomson.com/en/blog...-control-over/Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Here is the link to the ruling.
Hopefully that clears it up for you.
How much do you think it costs to retain a lawyer to fight a provincial ticket 3 levels of court.
The only thing wrong with this post is you thinking you know more about this than anyone else.
The facts are the facts.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
And how many people who have permission to hunt on private property also have a letter from the owners authorizing them as agents under the Trespass to Property Act.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
A very low percentage.
No where in this thread has the original poster (Deer Wrastler) stated he has been issued such a letter by the owner his uncle.
If the letter was issued and was not notarized it could easily be challenged in court.
Even if it was notarized it still could be challenged in court.
If challenged the owner would have to appear to confirm it validity.
Without a notarized letter police are not likely to lay charges without the owner being contacted. Good chance even if it was notarized the owner would be contacted during the investigation to confirm he has not issued permission to the alleged offender.
How many owners would be willing to go through these hassles?
Without first discussing this with the owner it may be a good idea not to jump into initiating any LEO enforcement action on your own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stragglelake
Just read the ruling and what I read was found on the Judges last few lines and I quote:
[COLOR=#000000]Accordingly, I conclude that the appellant does not meet the definition of "occupier" in the Off-Road Vehicles Act, when the definition is read in the entire context of the Act and the words of the definition are given their grammatical and ordinary sense, interpreted harmoniously with the scheme and object of that Act, the intention of the legislature and the other two statutes that employ the same language.
[39] For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal and affirm the decision of the appeal judge convicting the appellant.
Appeal dismissed.
Is there another decision you did not post for us to see.
9 In the belief that some provincial legislation, including the Off-Road Vehicles Act, does not apply within the property, the corporation enacted by-laws mimicking that and other legislation. By-law 48 provides that off-road vehicles must be operated as required by the Off-Road Vehicles Act and specifically requires the driver of such vehicles to wear a helmet. Legislation.
Maybe this is what really complicated your friends situation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsman
I think your getting owner mixed up with occupier.Your definition from post #24 is as follows:
An "occupier" is someone who lives there or rents the property. Owner may also be the occupier.
The legal definition as previously posted is:
occupier” includes,
(a) a person who is in physical possession of premises, or
(b) a person who has responsibility for and control over the condition of premises or the activities there carried on, or control over persons allowed to enter the premises,
even if there is more than one occupier of the same premises; (“occupant”)
Deer Wrestler has permission to hunt the premises from his Uncle and therefore becomes "an occupier" as per sub (b). He has been given responsibility and control over the condition OR activities there carried on,OR control over persons allowed to enter the premises even if there is more than one occupier of the same premises.
In relation to your first question "how many people who have permission to hunt have a letter from the owners authorizing them as agents,I would say a pretty large number.Any one with a OFAH permission slip signed by the owner of the property would be deemed an agent for the owner.
The activity they control is hunting on the land and Yes there can be more than one occupier.
So here we disagree some what, MOST owners will authorize a hunter in writing will also probably tell them if ANYONE else has permission to hunt the land.If there was a doubt then one would ask.
Which is where we agree,no LEO enforcement action on your before should be carried out before speaking to the owner.
Just remember the "trespasser" is the one in court who has to convince a Justice he/she was legally on the land once a prima facie case has been established.
Deer Wrestler takes the stand,tells the court he has his uncles permission to hunt the land,he is a occupier,the trespasser came on and was told he was trespassing and that Deer Wrestler had permission from the uncle.Thats about all it takes for the case in the first instance,the trespasser then has to give his excuse for being on the land.
I got the last ruling wrong. I remembered it different because I thought we got what we wanted in the end because the OPP stopped with the tickets on private property.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
It does not change the facts of what I posted.
They were still giving tickets on private property.
They still said they wouldn't come for trespassers if called.
It still cost 50k
It still isn't the same as a constable at the Rogers Centre, it might be the way the act reads but good luck having them show up and lay a charge.
I know you said to call a C.O. First.
Again.... I wasn't disagreeing with your post I was just adding my experience and how I looked at it.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
It does change the facts that you posted, the case was lost and the appellant was deemed not to meet the definition of occupier.
This case was pretty unusual IMHO and much more complicated than you originally posted and I am glad you shared it with us for our reading.
Gilroy you are jumping to many incorrect conclusions.
Having permission to hunt on a place in no way makes you a occupier.
Nor does it give you the powers as a legal Representative of the owner in respect to the Trespass to Property Act.
If it was as you believe not many would even consider giving permission for others to hunt (or hike, fish, ATV ect.) on their property.
When I rented a farm house I was considered the occupier of the house and surrounding lawn & garden area. Actually the sole occupier for this small area.
Even though I had permission to walk through and even hunt the rest of his properties I was never considered an occupier of these places.
As foryour completely out in left field. To even think just because you have permission to be on a property gives you legal rights as an agent of the owner is totally off base.Quote:
In relation to your first question "how many people who have permission to hunt have a letter from the owners authorizing them as agents,I would say a pretty large number.Any one with a OFAH permission slip signed by the owner of the property would be deemed an agent for the owner.
To be given these rights it must be specifically for those rights and not assumed because you have a OFAH permission slip.
If I understand you in relation to the house and garden you feel you were the sole occupier.But when you ventured into the surrounding properties to hunt you lost this status, what exactly were you when you hunted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsman
In relation to the OFAH permission slips a landowner is inviting you onto his/her land to hunt.If they are not occupiers by definition what status are they?
How does a hunter with a written permission enjoy the land if he/she cannot tell a trespasser to get out.
Is it your contention that the hunter with permission has to get the landowner down and warn off the trespasser.
What if the landowner is a Corporation,a large Stadium and Shopping Mall, do you think the police and security companies need a physical owner in court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Trespass to Property Act
1. (1) In this Act,
“occupier” includes,
(a) a person who is in physical possession of premises, or
(b) a person who has responsibility for and control over the condition of premises or the activities there carried on, or control over persons allowed to enter the premises,
even if there is more than one occupier of the same premises; (“occupant”)
“premises” means lands and structures, or either of them,
2. (1) Every person who is not acting under a right or authority conferred by law and who,
(a) without the express permission of the occupier, the proof of which rests on the defendant,
(i) enters on premises when entry is prohibited under this Act, or
(ii) engages in an activity on premises when the activity is prohibited under this Act; or
(b) does not leave the premises immediately after he or she is directed to do so by the occupier of the premises or a person authorized by the occupier,
is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 2 (1); 2016, c. 8, Sched. 6, s. 1.
As you can read even a "person authorized by the occupant" can direct a person to leave the premises.Otherwise the authorization slips would be useless.Hence a person authorized by the occupant becomes their agent.
Simple analogy for you my pension plan OMERS owns Square One shopping mall.Shops rent the space,they become "occupiers".
The shops hire security guards to prevent crimes,they become agent of the occupiers under the TPA.
The courts accept these security guards are acting on behalf of the occupiers.Owners are out of the picture,occupiers are in.
" if they are not occupiers by definition what are they "Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Guests ??
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes just because you have permission to be on private property you are no more than a guest.Quote:
Originally Posted by stragglelake
You have no more legal authority than a guest unless it is specifically granted to you.
Let's compare these situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
1.Shop rents space.
2.Hunter has permission to use property.
1.Exchange of money and contract spelling out rights & responsibilities.
2. No exchange of money or contract spelling out rights & responsibilities.
1. Occupier
2. Guest
Hunter is nothing more than a guest unless specifically given the authority of the agent of the occupier/owner.
GuestQuote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
A landowner would in most cases be the occupier but if there is another occupier they would still be the landowner.Quote:
In relation to the OFAH permission slips a landowner is inviting you onto his/her land to hunt.If they are not occupiers by definition what status are they?
Where do you figure you have been granted this right on this property?Quote:
How does a hunter with a written permission enjoy the land if he/she cannot tell a trespasser to get out.
Yes either the owner or legal occupier unless you have specifically been granted this authority.Quote:
Is it your contention that the hunter with permission has to get the landowner down and warn off the trespasser.
At least a legally authorized representative of the owner or the legal occupier. In the case of a mall the security company may be a legally appointed representative of the owner or occupier.Quote:
What if the landowner is a Corporation,a large Stadium and Shopping Mall, do you think the police and security companies need a physical owner in court.
Yes a person authorized by the occupant can act as their agent under the Trespass to Property Act.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Just because you have permission to be on the property does not grant you this authority.
The OFAH slip only gives you permission to be there. Nothing more.
I highly doubt many landowners/occupiers would ever sign a permission slip if they thought they were giving permission for anything more than allowing someone to be on their property for the intended activity.
You must specifically be given the authority to act as an agent of the owner/occupier before you have this control.
To represent your self as an agent of the owner without their specific permission could lead to charges against you for misrepresenting your authority. If the police get involved and the owner states I never gave that person permission to act as my agent in respect to the Trespass to Property Act at best you would be looking at a warning.