Poacher Busted...
- Thread starter southern star
- Start date
- Status
Dogbreath
Well-Known Member
Very much agree.
While Seawolf is correct this forum is a partisan place and anyone caught poaching and then looking to find sympathy here would be well advised to look in the dictionary between **** & syphilis.
Roofus
Member
What's really surprising in all of this, is that 8 Chinook were found off FC
It's may be the start of the huge run of fish that's has been running through Comox for the last two week lots of big fish
Actually you live in a country which guarantees you the following:
Legal Rights
Life, liberty and security of person
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Search or seizure
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
Detention or imprisonment
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
Arrest or detention
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.
Proceedings in criminal and penal matters
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;
(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;
(c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
(e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;
(f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;
(g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations;
(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and
(i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.
Treatment or punishment
12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
Self-crimination
13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.
Interpreter
14. A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.
Nobody said you cannot discuss the day's events. However when you step over the line, you open yourself up to laws protecting us all from libel and slander. You cannot simply run off at the mouth and publish pictures without opening yourself to legal recourse. It is perfectly fine to state that " an enforcement incident occurred at the boat ramp", but when you state "Billy Bob is a poacher", you better be darn sure it is the truth. Anyone with a boat could have their picture taken with a DFO Officer making a routine investigation. Until a person pleads guilty, or is convicted, they are presumed innocent. The powers given to DFO to search and seize, exceed those of the police. I have no idea as to what happened to whom, I just stumbled on a post where not only everyone assumed guilt, but were also looking to profit from his seizure and where guilt appears to be a given without a trial. The original poster has not had much to say on this forum until today. I find it hard to believe that any DFO Officer would offer any information to "Joe Stranger", so how much is truth, conjecture or hearsay?
Last edited by a moderator:
Jacob's Ladder
Active Member
Just wanted to advise that the RCMP have the same powers as DFO, including for search and seizure. Just like they have same powers as CBSA, BC conservation officers etc etc.
I am glad the RCMP and DFO worked together on their investigation. Just shows that we fisherman sometimes have to be the eyes and ears on allegded poachers and how reporting is important. Someone was caught off the breakwater in Victoria Last year. If I remember right he was known to sell his catch??
JL
I am glad the RCMP and DFO worked together on their investigation. Just shows that we fisherman sometimes have to be the eyes and ears on allegded poachers and how reporting is important. Someone was caught off the breakwater in Victoria Last year. If I remember right he was known to sell his catch??
JL
Jacob's Ladder
Active Member
The "acts or legislation" determine who has the power to enforce that specific legislation. The RCMP is written to enforce almost all legislation both provincial and federal in Canada. It is not specified in these acts who gets more power for search or seizure. It just simply states who can enforce it. Therefor the RCMP has the exact same powers as DFO, CBSA and so on. However I am sure standard practices are to let the agency who specialize in the work, do their thing so to speak. Who Knows.
I was stopped at Constance bank two years ago by a Massive RHIB RCMP boat. They said they were apart of Border Integrity. They also had a DFO on board. They were wearing many hats that day. Nice enough guys though. The fisheries officer didn't quite have the same sense of humour when I asked to borrow his gun to shoot the seal that just ate my salmon. The RC's were laughing though. lol
I had an old school buddy who was a fish cop who converted to the RCMP. He was always taking umarked traps off of the beacon pier in Sidney and writing fish tickets at Tulista Park. Pretty fun when I went on a ride along with him. Turns out DFO officers are actually trained at the RCMP training school in Regina and CBSA conducts some of their training at the RCMP training facility in Chilliwack.
Food for thought.
JL
Sculpin
Well-Known Member
My understanding is that DFO, CBSA, and BC Conservation officers do not need a search warrant where as the RCMP do in a lot of instances. This is why they work together and you see DFO and CBSA officers out on RCMP vessels. This is what I was getting at about them having less power than the other agencies.
In this instance the RCMP escorted the boat in and the DFO officers performed the search and seizure.
In this instance the RCMP escorted the boat in and the DFO officers performed the search and seizure.
Jacob's Ladder
Active Member
I will tell you what. you look into it and if your right I will buy a beverage. all I was saying i that the RCMP can enforce. i am not saying they would and i am sure they would rarely do so. I am sure the RCMP are being paid to check for drug smugglers, impaired drivers and life jackets. the dfo has specific officers paid to enforce the fisheries act. of course the DFO would lead any investigation. same goes with conservation, CBSA and so forth. this is my last post on the matter.
trophywife
Crew Member
So .. If he is convicted please post up pics and his info... Let the shaming begin after his legal conviction
Hookin'up
Well-Known Member
I heard/read a while back that DFO is not allowed to search without your given permission, their powers to do that were stripped by the courts, they now pose it as a question to you that they are going to search but if you disagree then they cannot. kind of a trick question of sorts?
cbsa, rcmp, and BCCO's can search tho without given permission,
I may be way off base here, but I think there was a thread on this a while back
but feel free to correct me I need a good slapping once and a while
Klob
Well-Known Member
This is what kills me about our court system. Did he have 8 springs? Was there only two on the boat? Was it a day trip? If the answers are Yes,Yes and Yes he is guilty of the offence, no ifs ands or buts. Now if you can afford a good lawyer, chances are you walk on a technicality. Justice served. Why plug up the courts. I know it sounds a little wild west but did they "allegedly" find these fish on board? Did he "allegedly try to run from the law? Again sounds pretty black and white to me. Where is the grey. OK, now bring on the civil rights movement, I deserve it.
Here is a good read on the powers of a fisheries officer and the fisheries act.
http://www.mackenziefujisawa.com/News_Articles/Chris_Watson_TheDFOsPower.pdf
http://www.mackenziefujisawa.com/News_Articles/Chris_Watson_TheDFOsPower.pdf
eaglemaniac
Well-Known Member
Very Informative Sea Wolf. Thanks. eman
eman
spring fever
Well-Known Member
Kind of curious what you or anyone thinks their limit of rods is-I think if you have a non-licensed person on the boat then the max is one per licensed person. I don't sox fish but I understand its a many "splendid rod" thing-is that illegal. Can't find it in the regs anywhere-used to be listed.
Hookin'up
Well-Known Member
Thanks for posting that seawolf, I stand corrected.
but now the way I read that is once they found the Chinooks onboard it switched from routine inspection to an investigation and at that point they better have applied for a search warrant or all the evidence can be thrown out and all items were illegally seized.
does this sound correct or am I off base again? , and how does that work? obtaining a search warrant after the fact I sure there are lawyers that will eat that up and spit it out
seems like our legal systems are developed with loop holes inplace to help the criminals at times
but now the way I read that is once they found the Chinooks onboard it switched from routine inspection to an investigation and at that point they better have applied for a search warrant or all the evidence can be thrown out and all items were illegally seized.
does this sound correct or am I off base again? , and how does that work? obtaining a search warrant after the fact I sure there are lawyers that will eat that up and spit it out
seems like our legal systems are developed with loop holes inplace to help the criminals at times
- Status
Similar threads
