Party fishing

[rick_iles]

So I asked you 2 questions so far that you have given no response too.
1. how many fish over your limit would warrant a charge? and now
2. what is your comprehension of the statement?
Guess you have no good response for either.

Well, to try and answer your question, an experienced investigator, with any common sense at all would look at the entire picture. He/she wouldn't say, " One fish too many, get the pinch book out".
Here you have two non-resident anglers, who were cooking their 4 fish. They were within the "spirit" of the law. One, when asked the question, readily admitted that he caught three. For the sake of argument, as this info is not known, they both had the appropriate licences. There was no attempt to hide the fact of who caught what. They were honest and forthcoming. It is not a stretch to believe they did not know the party fishing rule, and in all likelyhood, articulated that to the CO. It would have been in order for the investigator to come to that conclusion.
Had they had 5 or more, then clearly they were in violation. The fact that they were within their legal possession limit, notwithstanding the party fishing rule, should tend to make an investigator believe they had no "intent" to violate their possession limits.
If you can't understand this concept of enforcement, I can't help you !!
To edit: You have heard terms like "spirit of the law", the "intent" and "the rule of law", every LEO understands very quickly the meaning of these terms where enforcement is concerned. The courts at trial also consider the same aspects of the legislation. A lot of new LEOs that subscribe to your "charge them all" mentality have had their arses handed to them in open court. That only serves to bring their credibility and judgment under scrutiny by the JP or Justice, whatever the case may be. As I said in an earlier post, a LEO that conducts himself or herself, with your mentality will not last long.

[finsfurfeathers]

End result assumptions made on the conduct of the CO with the limited info of a hearsay story.
So food for thought on a verified story of what happens when you don't follow the rules.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunde...rout-1.2595692
On the up side like the response giving by the convicted.

[fratri]

End result assumptions made on the conduct of the CO with the limited info of a hearsay story.
So food for thought on a verified story of what happens when you don't follow the rules.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunde...rout-1.2595692
On the up side like the response giving by the convicted.

You got to know (I am sure you are aware) when the media gets involved in anything, public opinion comes into to play with any legal matter so not really a fair comparison...besides......it's only the OP story (post) that should be referred too.
CO's have the power to charge or to give warnings (inform)....lets leave it at that.

[finsfurfeathers]

You got to know (I am sure you are aware) when the media gets involved in anything, public opinion comes into to play with any legal matter so not really a fair comparison...besides......it's only the OP story (post) that should be referred too.
CO's have the power to charge or to give warnings (inform)....lets leave it at that.

You are right however if they do decide to charge its for just reasons and should be applauded not berated based on third party hearsay story.

[fratri]

Conservation officers ( https://www.ontario.ca/page/conserva...nd-authorities )

In 2015, Ontario’s conservation officers:
•made over 220,000 enforcement contacts
•issued close to 7,000 warnings
•laid nearly 3,000 natural resource charges

On a personal note:
A few years back I called the MNR office to let them know that a snapping turtle was laying eggs on the shoulder of a road that was under construction. In a nutshell... I was told to leave them alone in the name of progress and if I moved the eggs (even though they were going to be run over-flattened with a big roller) I could be charged.... such silly talk makes you wonder about people in power.....
Anyway, I always believed............... it should be the intent of the law that should be followed, not the written law (words on paper). I guess that is what judges are for.

[finsfurfeathers]

Conservation officers ( https://www.ontario.ca/page/conserva...nd-authorities )


Anyway, I always believed............... it should be the intent of the law that should be followed, not the written law (words on paper). I guess that is what judges are for.

Believe it or not so do I. Thing is most can not follow the spirit of the law especially if it goes against self interest. Also the more slack the enforcement the greater the amount of divergence. Rather see a bit more enforcement than out right drastic actions.

[jaycee]

Conservation officers ( https://www.ontario.ca/page/conserva...nd-authorities )

In 2015, Ontario’s conservation officers:
•made over 220,000 enforcement contacts
•issued close to 7,000 warnings
•laid nearly 3,000 natural resource charges

On a personal note:
A few years back I called the MNR office to let them know that a snapping turtle was laying eggs on the shoulder of a road that was under construction. In a nutshell... I was told to leave them alone in the name of progress and if I moved the eggs (even though they were going to be run over-flattened with a big roller) I could be charged.... such silly talk makes you wonder about people in power.....
Anyway, I always believed............... it should be the intent of the law that should be followed, not the written law (words on paper). I guess that is what judges are for.

This is taken from the link you provided, I like this part ;arrest anyone who has committed, is committing or is about to commit an offence under many of the acts they are authorized to enforce
Updated: August 10, 2016
Published: July 18, 201

They can arrest you just because you intended to commit an offence , but haven't.

[Bandwagon]

You really don't have a clue .
Given your rationale, everyone should be charged with every violation......period ! Every person here has violated one law or another, without question. The facts with this case, not reading anything into them, are....two guys caught and kept 4 walleye. When contacted by a CO, they readily disclosed who caught what. A LEO using common sense would believe that these guys were not aware of the rules. If they intended on poaching, they would have kept a lot more that their limit of 4, and they certainly would not have readily admitted that they purposely broke the law.
There is no indication here that they "intended" to break the law, no intent!
A similar instance would be you getting stopped because your trailer lights were not working, but you had them hooked up properly when you left. There is no intent to break the law. I can just imagine the squawking if you were whacked for every breach of any law. But as you say, thems the rules !
Thankfully, LEO,s still have discretion where enforcement is concerned. The LEO in this case, did not use any discretion, and as Sawbill said, did more harm than good ! I would pretty much guarantee that any JP hearing this case would dismiss it. This was a bullchit charge.....period !

ignorance of the law is not an excuse, bullchit charge, how so? You may not like the results as "party fishing" is practiced by so many but please don't tell me that the law was not broken and the case would be dismissed. Share your opinion but don't confuse it with fact.

[finsfurfeathers]

ignorance of the law is not an excuse, bullchit charge, how so? You may not like the results as "party fishing" is practiced by so many but please don't tell me that the law was not broken and the case would be dismissed. Share your opinion but don't confuse it with fact.

End result assumptions made on the conduct of the CO with the limited info of a hearsay story.
So food for thought on a verified story of what happens when you don't follow the rules.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunde...rout-1.2595692
On the up side like the response giving by the convicted.

Reason I submitted the link to the article found it describes what actually may happen not what might happen.

[rick_iles]

ignorance of the law is not an excuse, bullchit charge, how so? You may not like the results as "party fishing" is practiced by so many but please don't tell me that the law was not broken and the case would be dismissed. Share your opinion but don't confuse it with fact.

Question: How many years of enforcement experience do you have? How many hundreds of hours have you spent sitting in court being part of or listening to actual court disposition ?