Printable View
Anybody know why the COs are out in full force around Marlbourough forest lately? Been hunting there for years and never saw one. On Saturday I came out of the woods and an MNR truck happened to drive by and stop. 2 guys jumped out checked my paperwork, firearm and wanted to look in truck. I then watched them check other parked cars. On Sunday saw another CO heading somewhere in a hurry in the same area.
I don't mind them being out and doing spot checks but it's odd.
When I was speaking with the CO's at the MNR in Kemptville last fall, there were quite open in that the are 'complaint driven'. So chances are there was a complaint put forward and know they're making their presence felt. ..AND..that's a good thing, far to many yahoo's out there ruining it for everyone else.
Like I said, I didn't care about the spot check but I did ask if they were looking for anything or anyone in particular and they said no.
Agree, good thing to see them out there, way to often it is just a free for all out there, hunting or fishing.
There are recent threads on here that specifically name that forest as well. I'm sure they read this site and if they know that people are actively hunting in there it's worth a trip for them to check things out.
What area? On Paden road there is a fella who constantly calls the MNR and Police to harass hunters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FamilyMan
I didn't think that they could check inside your truck without permission ?Quote:
Originally Posted by FamilyMan
Unlike Police they don't need your permission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
Conservation officers are empowered to:
stop and/or inspect a vehicle, boat or aircraft
inspect firearms, ammunition, fish or game
inspect buildings or other places
[COLOR="#FF0000"]search with a warrant, and in circumstances requiring immediate action, without one
seize items related to an offence
ask questions relevant to the inspection
arrest anyone who has committed, is committing or is about to commit an offence under many of the acts they are authorized to enforce
I didn't think even the police could. Suspicion isn't a reason especially if your minding your own business and you happen to be somewhere that a crime may have been committed.
Police may ask any questions they need to when investigating an incident. There's several ways to accomplish that without violating civil rights. Things get difficult when questions are asked of someone who knows their rights and decides to exercise them.Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
Thanks for the info trimmer21.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Yes, they are trained in and conduct online investigation.Quote:
Originally Posted by GW11
CO's can, cops can't. I had the same thing happen to me in 1998. Went for a walk on an old rail bed. Upon returning to my vehicle I had the white CO truck behind me. I pulled over and was asked if I was hunting. Then I was asked if I had any guns in the vehicle. Even though I said I wasn't hunting or had guns, I asked them if they would like to look inside my vehicle. We both walked around to the back of the my car, I opened the trunk...spotless. The CO just glazed over and didn't say a thing. The silence was deafening. He still wasn't satisfied so he asked me for my 'hunting licence'. He did a background check. That came back clear and I was on my way. The way they acted they were sure they had their man, me. I think it was a case of I was in the wrong place at the wrong time.Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
Keep in mind that there is a difference between inspection and search. Inspection is to ensure compliance. Search is to look for evidence if there is reason to believe an offense has been committed.
The authority comes from the law, not which badge they're wearing. The FWCA grants specific authority to inspect vehicles. Since COs enforce the FWCA and OPP normally don't, cops would rarely if ever exercise that power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondroid
But I have had my fishing licence checked by an OPP officer, so you never know.
Been a while, but I believe OPP and CO's are designated "Peace Officers" while regular constables are designated "Police Officers". That designation gives them the authority what laws can be enforced by them.
I've yet to ever see a CO in my 20+ years of hunting. I have been in Marlborough forest lately for some rabbit hunting and plan on it again this weekend. Maybe I will pop my CO cherry this weekend? People who obey the law shouldn't have much to worry about, I would gladly allow them to search my vehicle because I know they would never find anything incriminating.
Any police officer has the powers of a CO under the FWCA. So the law gives an OPP officer the same power to stop and inspect a vehicle for FWCA compliance as given a CO. They don't because they have other fish to fry, and they are probably not really up to speed on FWCA questions anyway. But the point remains: the search power comes from the law, not which badge the officer wears.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blutck
Had an OPP check my license a few years ago, he couldn't even figure out where the date of expiry was. If your going to enforce the law it should be a requirement that you know what your looking for. He tried to claim it was expired but it was good for 3 years turned out he didn't hunt or fish and didn't really know the regulations. Essentially he stopped to just try and bug me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Both are Conservation officers under FWCA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blutck
Why would you be so keen to give up your Charter Rights and allow a CO to engage in a fishing expedition which could only turn out one way for you if anything was found.They are required to follow the law and it states:Quote:
Originally Posted by anfield21
Inspection of conveyance
89. (1) A conservation officer may stop a conveyance if he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that stopping the conveyance would assist in determining whether there is compliance with this Act or the regulations. 2009, c. 33,
So a search of your parked car would require some "reasonable grounds" you were violation of the Act.
Thanks Gilroy, that needed to be pointed out.
I was thinking the same thing Gilroy. Again back to my original statement that suspicion isn't a reason to search my vehicle unless I am being arrested and detained.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
10-4 on that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
The standard of reasonable grounds to believe is greater than mere suspicion but less than on a balance of probabilities when the totality of the circumstances are considered.[5] It is also greater than "[m]ere suspicion, conjecture, hypothesis or ‘fishing expeditions’".
The FWCA says,
90. (1) For the purpose of this Act or the regulations, a conservation officer may enter and inspect a building or other place in which the conservation officer believes on reasonable grounds there is any work or undertaking or any other thing to which this Act or the regulations apply....
Reasonable grounds to believe a thing to which the Act applies -- fish, game, or firearms -- is in your vehicle empowers a CO to enter and inspect that thing. This is well short of reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed. He needs only grounds to believe you caught a fish and kept it, or shot an animal, or have been hunting and have your gun with you.
Note that this is inspection, i.e. examining the thing to ensure compliance, not search, i.e. looking for a thing.
And they can do a search by looking into the window of the vehicle and not entering the vehicle.
The law specifically empowers them to enter the vehicle if they have reasonable grounds to believe a thing to which the FWCA applies is inside.
Reasonable grounds would be the CO /OPP actually seeing the crime happen. Not a hunch , suspicion or a someone saying that they may have seen a crime take place would be considered reasonable. They would need to produce a search warrant.
A member of the R.C.M.P. also has the powers, we have for a number of years been checked out at our ponds that we had leased for duck hunting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
I was out on simcoe years back maybe 5 year's ago and had the co's search my entire car. I told them I had one whitefish they checked high and low the trunk and all. They can and will check.
Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
Reasonable grounds are articulable reasons, based on objectively verifiable facts and taking into account exculpatory evidence, that would give a reasonable person grounds for a belief. For example, a strong smell of weed coming from a stopped car is reasonable grounds to believe weed is in the car, even if the officer can't see any and has not witnessed anyone put any into the car. The smell, and more specifically the strength of the smell, suggests that it is there. Slurred speech and clumsiness are reasonable grounds to believe a person is impaired, even if you did not see him drinking.
Also, a CO does not need to think you've broken the law to exercise his inspection powers. Read the section of the FWCA I quoted (FWCA 90). The officer needs only reasonable grounds to believe that a thing to which the FWCA applies is in the vehicle. He can then inspect that thing and enter the vehicle if necessary.
And finally, a CO doesn't need a warrant to search your car. He needs reasonable grounds to believe evidence of a specific offence is in the car, and exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless search (FWCA 91 (2)).
All this stuff is in the FWCA.
I understand what you have described and that's not what i am disputing. What I do have an issue is when an officer and this has happened when they do not have reasonable grounds , he/she uses power, authority( intimidation-manipulation) to check your vehicle. Big difference from what you have described. I have witnessed this happen to an individual many years ago by an officer with a huge ego.
They are not allowed to go on fishing trips and huge ego,s rapidly deflate when yur arse is in the witness box,your under oath and you have to justify what you have done.IMHOQuote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
CO's have to be able to do their job. Laws are never so restrictive that all they can do is sit there and watch traffic go by. One way to do that is to take a look inside a parked vehicle through a window. When the presence of fishing/hunting gear is seen,they have the authority to conduct an inspection. When on patrol and a vehicle being driven has (for example) a boat and trailer attached or hunting clothing clearly visible such as a blaze orange hat sitting on the dash in the vehicle (OK,maybe not so much anymore with high-vis PPE being required for employment activity unrelated to hunting,but,you get the drift) that's all the R&PG a CO needs to stop and speak with the driver. That's called "casual contact" and is quite legal. However,there must be a reason to inspect. Randomly stopping just any old vehicle on a whim without reasonable grounds is illegal. That would constitute a "fishing expedition" and in that case,you don't have to cooperate with any questioning. Does that help clear things up for you or just make matters more confusing?Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
I applaud your support of the CO,s and their job.But it can become a slippery slope, how far should their power be stretched.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
You buy a used pickup truck with a OFAH logo on the tailgate.You don,t want to remove it because it will peel the paint, so you leave it on.
Does this mean that during your ownership of the vehicle you should expect to be pulled over by a CO or Police officer?
If I am towing a boat and trailer attached means nothing except what it is.I might never have held a fishing rod in my hands in my lifetime.
I remember on here years ago the massive outcry from forum members when the OPP set up spot checks for hunters heading up to camp, to check for
registrations on their firearms, how quickly we forget.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
He should be charged with mischief. Or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's very clear and to the point I was trying to convey . Glad you described it as a fishing expedition .Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk
Nobody mentioned anything about "breaking in". Where did you get that?Quote:
Originally Posted by rippin_355
A camo hat in a truck is not reasonable grounds to believe any fish or game are in the truck.Quote:
Originally Posted by rippin_355
Also, inspection is administrative. They can't break in to conduct an inspection under any circumstances.
Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
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 Snowwalker
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
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 redd foxx
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 Gilroy
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
I have a problem with that comment but it's not uncommon coming from law enforcement or their supporters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwalker
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.
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmoose
Which brings up another question. You have a smartphone, video record the exchange. Maybe their line of questioning might change.
I do, because you never know what unintended consequences might arise in the future from pleading guilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwalker
The fact that you were stopped doesn't mean that the mere presence of a camo hat in a vehicle is reasonable grounds to inspect that vehicle, so beg to differ someplace else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondroid
The question was, does seeing a camo hat in a vehicle entitle a CO to break into said vehicle to inspect it. The answer, for multiple reasons, is no.
Not likely. The CO is allowed to ask pretty much any question he likes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondroid
Bingo...and add...a lot of the problems are due to their self righteous attitude when they encounter a LEO.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
The bottom line is....know your rights, know the law and remember that we have courts for a reason. I've been hunting and fishing for 50 yrs or so. I've seen some pretty bogus charges laid by CO's, as well as some very questionable conduct. Fortunately, I have been in a position to question them, and on more that a couple of occasions, educate them.
For the most part, the CO's encountered have been great people. But, as in any occupation, there are those who really shouldn't be there !
Good advice .Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
Their prevailing thoughts,lately,seem to be that everyone who either hunts,fishes or both is the "enemy" and that everyone poaches. I'd like to know who teaches the courses that leaves them with that mindset. That's like every Police Constable thinks and acts like every citizen is armed and ready to shoot them. Ridiculous. Many of Ontario's CO's need a refresher course on how to deal with people. Two things I learned really fast while serving with the Police service is 'you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar' and 'you don't get extra pay for a being a jerk off'.Quote:
Originally Posted by redd foxx
Well I think its very natural to get upset and self righteous when hunters are out there simply trying to enjoy hard earned day,s off and holidays.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
What we have to be aware of these days that did not exist back 30 years ago are there are plenty of people with agendas and axes to grind against hunters.
They have no problems picking up a phone and making a outlandish or false complaint. If you are approached by a CO in that event my first question would be
"what it the problem officer" followed by "have you reduced this complaint into writing and do you have the complainant,s signature on that complaint.
If the answer is negative request that be done and exercise your right to not incriminate yourself.
Its pretty amazing how a story changes when a memo book is taken out and a detailed question and answer is conducted with complaints made in bad faith.
Even more so when the complainant is cautioned they could be charged with public mischief if the allegation is found to be patently false.
P.S. Mike you are somewhat safer from this type of interaction with a CO as you have your own place to hunt on.Spare a thought for the other hunters who have to hunt in public accessed areas such as the one discussed in this thread.
I like that approach,Gilroy. Addressing a CO in that manner conveys two things to them,immediately,that you know your civil rights and that you expect them to have their (i's) dotted and (t's) crossed because you're not about to tolerate horse s**t from "anonymous sources". Of course,you and I know how to do that professionally,but,for others,maybe not so much,leaving the impression with CO's that they're being handed "attitude" from the get-go.
Well said !Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
I agree presentation is important and keeping your cool and to be honest with you all my inter reactions with CO,s have been generally very good.We did have an over enthusiastic CO up in White River one year who accused us of shooting a Bull Moose without a bull tag.This was based on him finding the severed legs of a Cow Moose legally harvested lying on a bush trail.One of the guys went to dump the legs away from camp and dropped one on the road of his atv.In the meantime the Cow Moose carcass was 100klms away hanging in a butchers shop.Well fortunately one of the guys had taken pictures of the hanging Cow Moose with tag attached on the meat pole. Cleared the whole matter up,we all had coffee and this same CO dropped into camp in the following years and we got to know him pretty good.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
I could tell you a crazy story or two about the conduct of a group of CO's on private property. Things can get pretty interesting when they assume a certain thing is going on and they don't find what they expect to find. Then toss in the fact that they have put all of their manpower for the area on opening day into one "sting" and it turns out to be more or less a wild goose chase. The experience was enough to make a couple of members of our group give up hunting that particular animal and one member quit hunting altogether.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
I'd be happy to share the details of that day through PM with anyone interested in the story and would like a real eye-opener. I'm not sure that posting it all publicly would be a good idea.
Unless you are exposing some secret enforcement methods which might hinder future investigations I would post away.The great thing about forums like these is that they do educate and inform a lot of us and give new hunters plenty to think about.There are hundreds of years of collective hunting experiences with the members and we can greatly reduce the learning curve and that cant be a bad thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by GW11
Well it's a fairly long story and maybe it's best if I didn't further derail this thread and I'll go ahead post it under a new title. My concern is not so much with exposing enforcement methods as it is about the details exposing too much about who the CO's involved were and who I am. There would also be a pile of judgement by the internet lawyers thrown my way but I'm not too worried about that. I'll try to manipulate it so the "who and where" stays anonymous and the "what" is still conveyed. It is definitely a story that all hunters should hear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
I find it very interesting reading these posts from several retired Police Officers. Some good sound advice coming from them in regards to dealing with CO's.
I think it's important to remember the purpose and functions of the CO as opposed to a P.O. The CO's mandate is to protect and manage wildlife, fisheries and the natural resources . By default, we, the general population become their adversaries, if you will, in them doing their job. They aren't out to help people. They aren't concerned about protecting the public, as a P.O. does during his/her daily duties.
Add to this, the fact they are short on personnel and budget means they are naturally going to try and do more, with less. I equate it to a small guy fighting a big guy? The little guy is going to have to use every trick in the book to get results. The CO's will and do try everything they can to get results in their favour. Since it is JQ Public between them and their mandate, guess what?
You just made my point. You fighting the ticket "COSTS" you. Be it a payed sick day, a lieu day, or a vacation day. The expense of gas, parking and your time. Where do you want to spend your day in court or with the wife/kids?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondroid
Not sure where or how you think I am enforcement or a "supporter". What ever you think a "supporter" does that's not me.
Personally if I was not guilty of an offence I,am having my day in court, don,t care how much it costs me.I would want an allegation aired out completely and want to give my full defense.Rolling over is a bad policy as poor officers laying poor charges just continue and we all get screwed by them.Best check on them is to be in the hot seat with a Justice listening to the evidence and hopefully then getting sanctioned on the stand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwalker
This is why we have the mess today in law enforcement, Police officers giving out unwarranted tickets for crap offences,laying several charges,the public hiring a para legal to make a deal or save points and those same officers never having to take the stand and prove their cases.They continue on and on and actually think they are doing a good job, when if fact they are doing a lousy job.Get them on the stand and have the crap cross examined out of them.
Quote: Defend everything. Plead guilty to nothing and let a jury decide.-- Mr. Justice George Inrig. The man was a legend in Ontario Superior Court and one of the smartest men I've ever met.
True on all points. Just burns my butt that JQ public has to install professional behavior in them, since the training never did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
I used to cut his grass!!Quote:
Mr. Justice George Inrig. The man was a legend in Ontario Superior Court and one of the smartest men I've ever met.