Interesting Story

[welsh]

Knowing that most hunters don't know their rights allows them (emboldens them) to act in a way that could be shut down fairly quickly by someone who knows their rights.

This is not unique to COs.

[Gilroy]

The problem is that hiring lawyers and taking time off work is not an option for most people. LEO know this too well.

Well you can hire a good para legal or represent yourself.Its not that difficult to defend yourself in court,its basically the officers story and yours.It helps if you know what questions to ask and its nerve wracking but most all Justices I have come across go out of their way to give you a fair shake and most of them know when a LEO is telling a porkie on the stand. Case law is easy to look up these days on the net and if your truly innocent it generally shines thorough.I would never plead guilty to an offence I did not commit, remember it costs the system time and money to run a trial against a citizen,make sure they pay and give a full defense.

[ninepointer]

We typically get a yearly visit from COs at our deer camp. They do a tour of all the camps in the area. A couple years ago we got a "tip" from another camp that the COs had just been there, were on their way to our place and that they were real A-holes this time. The guy bragged about all smart talk and general obstruction his group did to make things hard for the COs.

Sure enough later that day the two CO's rolled into our place on their ATVs. They were as nice as any guys you'd ever meet and we recognized one of them from past years. After some formalities, checking of a few licenses and questions about our deer and the tags on them, the CO's sat down with us for coffee and a friendly chat.Don't get me wrong, these CO's had their LEO eyes and ears on the whole time, but we were clean, we're always clean, and they knew it.

Interesting how two different camps could get checked by the same CO's on the same day, yet come away would two completely different perspectives.

[ninepointer]

I had one negative experience with a CO and it just happened to be my first ever meeting with a CO. I was 16 years old, coming out of the woods at dusk with my encased bow. The CO and a couple of subordinates were waiting at my Dad's Pontiac Parisiene. The head guy was insistent that I had been hunting after legal shooting time and in retrospect he clearly did everything he could to intimidate the skinny kid in front of him. The worst part was that the whole time he would not stop shining his D-cell Maglite directly in my eyes. Then as I blindly fumbled to take my hunting licenses out of their sleeve as ordered, he accused me of stalling.

Happily, every CO that has checked me in the 30 years since then has more than made up for that guy in their professionalism.

[terrym]

My biggest problem with a CO is the stinking, farting, snoring one that sleeps in the bunk beside me at deer camp. His wife makes great desserts and my kids call him "Uncle" so I guess they aren't all bad

[rick_iles]

I think this is strict liability, so the question would not be whether you knew the bait was there but whether you did due diligence ... regardless, if he can only find bait at depths the ducks can't reach it the due diligence would seem to be established. It's when people say things like, "Well, I just figured we left enough time etc." (for example) that you get sunk on due diligence: any response that suggests you failed to check, etc. Which speaks to Gilroy's point that it's a good idea to clam up when questioned.

I'll happily shoot the breeze with a CO re how the hunting or fishing is in general if he's checking my licence. If you're being questioned about a specific offence, though, silence is golden. We've all got that tendency to cooperate, and it can sink you.

With respect to absolute liability.....refer to R v Chapin. SCC ruling. Very interesting case from Lake St Clair....

[welsh]

Thanks for that, Rick. For anyone who wants a little light reading, here's the Supreme Court ruling:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/...?resultIndex=3

If you want to skip the light reading, here's the shortest possible summary: a woman is charged with hunting over bait after a CO finds a small pile of soy and wheat 50 yards from her blind. The woman argues that the Crown has to prove she knew it was there; the Crown argues that it doesn't matter if she knew it was there. The Supreme Court said:
In my view the offence created by s. 14(1) is one of strict liability ... An accused may absolve himself on proof that he took all the care which a reasonable man might have been expected to take in all the circumstances or, in other words, that he was in no way negligent.

Most fish & game offences follow this standard, because it's the assumed standard of regulatory law. Going back to the situation in the OP, it highlights the importance of not voluntarily coughing up information that could in any way suggest negligence.

[Big Jack]

GW - you ran into an a-hole. There are a few out there but luckily there are many more that are just good solid fellows. I have hunted with some over the years and also fish with one here and there. They have a very tough job and I hold a lot of respect for the good ones trying to make a difference.

I only had one bad experience where a "notorious " one smacked into our boat with his while we were stationary. Put a good dent in it as well and he really did not give a crap. He was an unpleasant fellow in all respects. I was young and let it go because I did not know better. If that happened now it would be much different.

Since then I've seen several and they have been stand up guys. Glad to see them out there.

Marine OPP and OPP enforcing FWCA are a whole different story though. 3 bad experiences in last 5 years plus a few before. No charges laid but just a lot of posturing including two guys that argued about charging me for not enough flares on board. The fellow that wanted to charge knew little to nothing about the act he was trying to enforce. The other guy did. I calmly told them that in my immediate possession was a document from transport Canada stating exactly what was required on my vessel. The guy still yelled at me to get more flares as he was leaving. I felt sorry for the other cop and for the guys I had out on a charter that day as 45 minutes of their time was wasted.

[stilchen67]

Well another bad case made worse by paying the fine.I understand not wanting to miss a day of work but there was no proof you broke this law. This officer did not fine you $300.00 this is a suggested out of court settlement you decided to agree to.If you had fought the ticket you would probably have won, you should have fought the ticket yourself or with a para legal and questioned the officer in court in particular about the grow pot allegation.I would then after I won the case get a transcript of the court evidence and lay a formal complaint about the CO,s conduct.Its bizarre to make that kind of allegation and even stranger he charged you.

I agree with you -I believe I WOULD HAVE WON- BUT STILL LOST A DAYS PAY AND THE COST OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION- PLUS I HAD A YOUNG FAMILY- FUNNY THING IS THAT I HAVE TWICE HELPED WARDENS CATCH AND LAY CHARGES AGAINST POACHERS- I LAUGH ABOUT IT NOW- BUT STILL A BITTER PILL- THAT WARDEN HAD PREVIOUSLY WORKED IN THE TEMAGAMI AREA- HEARD A STORY THE SHIPPED HIM DOWN TO MY NECK OF THE WOODS BECAUSE OF HIS PROBLEMS UP NORTH

[Gilroy]

Thanks for that, Rick. For anyone who wants a little light reading, here's the Supreme Court ruling:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/...?resultIndex=3

If you want to skip the light reading, here's the shortest possible summary: a woman is charged with hunting over bait after a CO finds a small pile of soy and wheat 50 yards from her blind. The woman argues that the Crown has to prove she knew it was there; the Crown argues that it doesn't matter if she knew it was there. The Supreme Court said:
In my view the offence created by s. 14(1) is one of strict liability ... An accused may absolve himself on proof that he took all the care which a reasonable man might have been expected to take in all the circumstances or, in other words, that he was in no way negligent.

Most fish & game offences follow this standard, because it's the assumed standard of regulatory law. Going back to the situation in the OP, it highlights the importance of not voluntarily coughing up information that could in any way suggest negligence.

I agree with you in relation to voluntarily coughing up information but would like to ask you opinion on the following excerpt from the same case:


One would be hard pressed to characterize the offence created by s. 14(1) of the Migratory Birds Regulations as a “crime in the true sense”. Violation is punishable upon summary conviction and not indictment. One must note the absence of the usual signals connoting mens rea such as “wilfully” or “with intent”. In contrast, to take an example, s. 10 of the Migratory Birds Convention Act commences “Any person who wilfully refuses to furnish information or wilfully furnishes false information to a game office.


My question to you is where does a hunter cross the line or how much does he have to give in the way of information to an investigating CO.The key question is posed by the last sentence above.

I believe my charter right to remain silent take precedent over providing information to a CO investigating this type of offence.But the wording of the legislation and the FWCA makes my right to remain silent appear to be an offence.I believe that if I give my name,address,hunting card, that should be sufficient for a CO to lay a ticket,but I don,t think I need to provide any other details if I believe I might be charged. What is you opinion on this?