[Waye Out There]

the court of appeal would also be a huge tool for anyone charged under "wildlife habitat" since the crown is pretty unlikely to appeal a lose just to get it written in stone.

A huge tool that is going to cost huge $$$$$ and you may still lose.

 

[Waye Out There]

haha, my view you're out $$$$? really? maybe you can show the many closed and ongoing cases where these fringe arguments have cost people any money. your view causes people to turtle. we have limited rights (privileges for the semantics) as hunters and trappers. it's important for us to exercise them as we understand them to be written or we'll lose them. i'm not talking about taking a stand and pushing the limits, i'm talking about following the laws as a normal and reasonable person would interpret them.

We have no rights other than what is given by the regulations and it is the interpretation of those regulations that define what rights we have. To exercise them costs money if the enforcement officer and crown prosecutor do not agree with you. How much do you think it cost his guy to exercise those rights? In the end a guilty person walked with no conviction away but still had to pay the lawyers. The two fines probably would have been a lot cheaper.

federal laws around firearms are tied to the criminal code and provincial laws relate to firearms as property. the supreme court already ruled there's very little conflict and in this case, there was absolutely no conflict.

Actually there is conflict Federal laws only require a PAL /POL to transport a firearm anywhere while provincial laws only require a permit issued by DNR. Which one trumps?

case law is golden. sure it gets overturned, but some laws are written in an overly broad manner because people are lazy. they depend on people like you and i never challenging them so that a judge will never have to worry about the details. do you want to get into "wildlife habitat"?

(ba) "wildlife" means vertebrates that, in their natural habitat, are usually wild by nature and includes

(i) domestic organisms that are physically similar to their wild counterparts,

(ii) exotic wildlife, (iii) hybrid descendants of wildlife or of wildlife and a domestic organism,

(iv) the eggs, sperm or embryos of wildlife, and (v) any other organism designated as wildlife by the Governor in Council in accordance with this Act and the regulations;

(bb) "wildlife habitat" means any water or land where wildlife may be found and the roads and highways thereon;

if you really want to get deep, a vertebrate is basically an animal with a spine. so wildlife habitat is anywhere a wild bird, fish or mammal might choose to be. the inside of your house is even arguable here.

And the issue here is what? The regulations only require a permit if you are transporting a firearm not storing it. Not sure how you could be transporting a firearm inside your house and thus be governed by the transportation laws of the province.

the possession law as it stands was safe until someone decided to push the limits of the definition of "wildlife habitat". the prosecutor in this case gambled and lost. he even realized the mistake and tried to move the location of the "possession". it's a damning ruling. both sides knew the definition was terrible.

Since we haven't seen the testimony we do not why they tried to move the location. I would assume they tried to move the location of the offense more for the illegal hunting aspect than for possession. It would appear the prosecutor got greedy and tried for an illegal hunting conviction instead of sticking with 2 counts of illegal possession one for the firearm and one for the antlers.

and just to help people who think the law is too contrived and meant to confuse. here's your defence:

http://ualawccsprod.srv.ualberta.ca/ccs/index.php/constitutional-issues/the-charter/legal-rights-sections-7-14/54-interpreting-section-7-of-the-charter-clarity-vagueness-and-overbreadth

It is only a good defence if the judge agrees with you. If there is anyone out there who does not understand the definition of wildlife habitat as it is defined in the Wildlife Act then we have a serious issue. They may not like it or agree with it but I believe it is defined clearly enough that everyone understands what a wildlife habitat is.

 

[Waye Out There]

C4T there is an ever increasing amount of awareness by the non hunting/trapping public about our activities.

All groups have one common thread ...conservation. One key element is enforment of the regulations.

The last ten years has saw a growth in education about education of the general public from hunting groups and from enforcement them selves.

Your story will become the new norm. If I'm going some were trapping or hunting , acting well with in the law , I'm expecting to get reported.

Trapper Gary are you saying that you might do things differently if you weren't expecting to get reported?

It should make no difference if you are reported or not as long as you are conducting your activities within the bounds of the law then you have nothing to worry about.

One of the problems is and where this discussion started is that some parts of the law are not clear enough for every one to be on the same page with clear definitions. Additionally some users do not know the basics of the regs and are being taught incorrect regulations.

But the biggest problem for trappers is that the association that is supposed to represent them is nothing more than a puppet for DNR and will take what ever they are told by DNR on regulation issues without even getting a second legal opinion from a reputable source.

 

[Trapper Gary]

Don't do any thing different . Actually they watched me one time for three hours so I later was told . I'm just happy they did not tell the fiddle the beaver trick .

 

[gleurpy]

Actually there is conflict Federal laws only require a PAL /POL to transport a firearm anywhere while provincial laws only require a permit issued by DNR. Which one trumps?

provinces control property laws. firearms are property and the federal government has conceded that the provinces still control the property aspects of them. when it comes to possession you first have to be legal federally (criminal) and then provincially (property). there's no conflict and no trumping. it's 2016, i don't understand why we're even discussing this. this stuff was settled 15 years ago.

And the issue here is what? The regulations only require a permit if you are transporting a firearm not storing it. Not sure how you could be transporting a firearm inside your house and thus be governed by the transportation laws of the province.

the issue is the definition is ridiculously broad. that's my point. if a mouse is in your house, it's wildlife habitat. that's dumb, but that's how it's defined. have a mouse and a gun in your house on sunday? illegal possession.

80 (1) Except as provided in this Act or the regulations, every person, other than a conservation officer exercising authority pursuant to this Act or any other enactment, commits an offence who transports or possesses a firearm or bow in a wildlife habitat on Sunday.

a silly example, but in the judges eyes, claiming a gun in a vehicle travelling down a highway is illegal possession is just as silly. and he put it in his decision so now lots of other people can hold his decision as an example.

Since we haven't seen the testimony we do not why they tried to move the location. I would assume they tried to move the location of the offense more for the illegal hunting aspect than for possession. It would appear the prosecutor got greedy and tried for an illegal hunting conviction instead of sticking with 2 counts of illegal possession one for the firearm and one for the antlers.

the crown tried to move it for all charges and the judge only allowed it for 3. it's in the summary (count 2 is the posession charge):

[67] Given the foregoing factors, but mindful that the statements to police do not themselves
constitute a clear admission to possessing the rifle at any time or place other than at
Wagmatcook, I will not amend count 2. The effect is to require proof that Wagmatcook is
"wildlife habitat". As noted, there is no evidence before me on this essential element. This
alone is sufficient to enter a finding of not guilty on count 2. An additional reason to dismiss this
charge is discussed below.

It is only a good defence if the judge agrees with you. If there is anyone out there who does not understand the definition of wildlife habitat as it is defined in the Wildlife Act then we have a serious issue. They may not like it or agree with it but I believe it is defined clearly enough that everyone understands what a wildlife habitat is.

well, i was kind of being sarcastic, but my point is that the judge doesn't agree that the definition is good enough.

[35] S.79 of the Wildlife Act makes it an offence to "carry or possess" a firearm in "wildlife
habitat". "Wildlife" is, under the definition in s.3(ba), restricted to vertebrates, but otherwise very
inclusive. "Wildlife habitat" is defined in s.3(bb) to mean "any water or land where wildlife may
be found and the roads and highways thereon", which is also quite an expansive definition.
However, so far as I am aware it has not been interpreted to include all of Nova Scotia. It does
not seem to be appropriate for a court to take judicial notice, without evidence. It is thus a
matter for proof by the Crown whether the place where a s.79 offence allegedly occurs is in fact
wildlife habitat.

i have a feeling you're the kind of guy who thinks that the definition of wildlife habitat is so cut and dry that if i told you i was gonna drive to timmies and back with my rifle in the trunk, you'd say i'd be charged with illegal possession in wildlife habitat. i'd roll my eyes because the definition is dumb and you'd tell me, 'wait until you're in front of the judge.' well this guy was in front of the judge with a lot of other facts against him and the judge still thought the definition was dumb.

you can continue to argue about it, but the overwhelming evidence says the definition is dumb and won't hold up in court when it's trying to be applied to any place that common sense says is not wildlife habitat.

 

[gleurpy]

The spirit of the law in NS is that we are not to be transporting firearm in our vehicles without a valid permit to transport issued by DNR unless we going or coming from hunting, or one of the other exceptions listed in the firearm and bow regulations under transportation of firearms.

Clearly the judge did not understand the spirit or the wording of the law pertaining to transporting a firearm in NS just like he didn't understand that the guys defense of he could have been hunting coyotes was not valid because he could not hunt coyotes with that firearm at that time of the year.

It is quite possible that the crown also did not point out either of these violations either but I have not seen the evidence nor read the transcript of the case.

the spirit of the wildlife act is to prevent people from abusing the widlife resources in the province. to prevent poaching not to control firearms. in this case, the guy was actually poaching and the law is so poorly worded that they couldn't even make the possession charge stick.

man, pick a point of view of the legal system here. "you're going to get nailed with every misunderstood law and pay lots of fines." "these laws are clearly black and white and the judge didn't know what he was doing."

see, that's why it's not a good idea to get bogged down in the details. use common sense and you're likely to be just fine.

 

[gleurpy]

Unless you have read the entire transcript of of the court case you do not know what evidence was before the judge. There was only one culprit and that culprit was guilty of illegal possession of a firearm in a wildlife habitat and illegal possession of the antlers.

no he wasn't. the judge said so. that makes him the opposite of guilty since the judge is the guy who decides. that's kind of how it works.

 

[Waye Out There]

"use common sense and you're likely to be just fine."

And if enforcement isn't using common sense then what? Can all the hunters of this province expect Gluerpy to defend them in court free of charge?

You seem to miss the point of what could happen, not necessarily what will happen but what could happen.

Oh Yeah if you are driving to timmies with a rifle in your trunk during closed season you could be charged with illegal possession in a wildlife habitat and you could be charged with transporting a firearm without a permit.

Will you be charged, that depends on who stops you.

Will your arguments stand up in court, that depends on the Judge.

If you are charged it will cost you $$$$ to find out?

And if the judge doesn't agree with you, you will be out $$$ for the lawyer, $$$ for the fines and loss of hunting privileges.

You might say it is unlikely that you will get caught and you are probably correct.The difference in your opinion and my opinion is that I tell you what could happen and then leave it up to you to decide if you are willing to take the risk. Some people value their hunting privileges more than they value drivingtotimmies with their rifle in their trunk.

 

[Trapper Gary]

Why would any one be going to Tim Horton's with a rifle in the trunk out of season ?

 

[TrueGrit]

I guess that depends on, where in our country, you are. In Alberta that is perfectly acceptable. Firearm is stored out of sight of people passing by and there are no laws on transporting long rifles any time during the year. I love the life here in Nova Scotia. I was born here and live here, however I think the rules have gotten way too dramatic and controlling. I do not know where else in Canada that this is a chargeable offence other than here. Do I believe the stricter laws have affected the activities of poachers in this province? Not at all.

 

[gleurpy]

Why would any one be going to Tim Horton's with a rifle in the trunk out of season ?

meeting there to sell it.

 

[gleurpy]

"use common sense and you're likely to be just fine."

And if enforcement isn't using common sense then what? Can all the hunters of this province expect Gluerpy to defend them in court free of charge?

You seem to miss the point of what could happen, not necessarily what will happen but what could happen.

Oh Yeah if you are driving to timmies with a rifle in your trunk during closed season you could be charged with illegal possession in a wildlife habitat and you could be charged with transporting a firearm without a permit.

Will you be charged, that depends on who stops you.

Will your arguments stand up in court, that depends on the Judge.

If you are charged it will cost you $$$$ to find out?

And if the judge doesn't agree with you, you will be out $$$ for the lawyer, $$$ for the fines and loss of hunting privileges.

You might say it is unlikely that you will get caught and you are probably correct.The difference in your opinion and my opinion is that I tell you what could happen and then leave it up to you to decide if you are willing to take the risk. Some people value their hunting privileges more than they value drivingtotimmies with their rifle in their trunk.

sure. the first person that is charged for any of the made up scenarios you presented, i'll defend them free of charge.

oh my god, the hyperbole. what will happen? i could only be charged with possession in wildlife habitat. i only need a permit for a rifle (not shotgun) and the permit is to avoid the charge of illegal possession in wildlife habitat, so that's the same charge, not two. unless you're trying to sneak restricted firearms into the discussion which would be a federal issue. sooooo..... it will cost you the price of the ticket. not really big $$$$. in this case $352. and as i said, the laws can be written how they are and your imaginary enforcement officers who read into read every minute detail in the strictest sense while ignoring all intention of the law can write tons of tickets that will never be challenged. fair enough. easier to pay the fine than fight it. i never argued that point.

but, no one is going to court or losing their privileges over one infraction that can be misread. give me a break.

feel free to go through all the laws out there and apply the same level of scrutiny, trying to find these perceived "gotchas" that could impact our lives so severely that you'll actually refrain from doing things that are perfectly legal. i'm not going to argue with you.

but, don't treat this stuff like it's normal and we as hunters and trappers should be worried about it. you haven't shown one case where this strict interpretation caused someone to be charged and i've shown an example that things aren't as black and white as you want them to be.

 

[gleurpy]

I guess that depends on, where in our country, you are. In Alberta that is perfectly acceptable. Firearm is stored out of sight of people passing by and there are no laws on transporting long rifles any time during the year. I love the life here in Nova Scotia. I was born here and live here, however I think the rules have gotten way too dramatic and controlling. I do not know where else in Canada that this is a chargeable offence other than here. Do I believe the stricter laws have affected the activities of poachers in this province? Not at all.

i agree things are kind of crazy here around rifles especially, but i bet you dollars to donuts that a lot of our "possession in wildlife habitat" laws and the definition of wildlife habitat, were actually pushed by deer hunters through the federation during the boom years of the deer herd.

it's hard to catch people poaching red handed. we all know it's easy to get away with. even easier back in the day with so many hunters and so many deer.

 

[gleurpy]

let's talk about a real black and white law with a penalty 7 times larger than illegal weapon possession in wildlife habitat that every hunter and possibly every person in nova scotia breaks:

Shining light in wildlife habitat

69 (1) Except as provided in this Act or the regulations, no person shall shine a light having a voltage of more than four and one-half volts in or upon any wildlife habitat not owned by that person at times when hunting is not permitted.

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), it is prima facie evidence that the light or lights of a vehicle are more than four and one-half volts when the source of energy or energy for such light or lights is the electrical system of the vehicle. R.S., c. 504, s. 69.

Shining light of more than 4.5 volts at night on wildlife habitat not owned by that person 69(1) $2422.50

$2422.50 is bigger $$$$ than $352. by one $.

so, according to some in this thread, i should warn every fisher person, camper, hiker, etc, that if they have a flashlight that takes more than 3 AA/AAAs they're looking at a $2,500 fine.

i mean you hand your kid the old school lunchbox 6v and send out on the front lawn looking for some nightcrawlers. better hope the kid i still a young offender.

this one is black and white, clear cut. who would honestly think the judge won't consider the intention of the person and the intention of the law? some here don't think so.

the fact is, some laws just aren't meant to stand on their own two feet. this is one of them.

 

[gleurpy]

another law we all have to be very very very worried about. very black and white as well.

Preservation of carcass 61

No person, having taken or killed any wildlife, shall allow the carcass, pelt or green hide thereof to be destroyed, wasted, abandoned or spoiled except as provided in this Act or the regulations. R.S., c. 504, s. 61.

Allowing carcass, pelt or green hide (specify) of wildlife to be wasted or destroyed 61 $237.50

someone can correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure the only mention of hide disposal revolves around deer and ticks and is only mentioned in the summary and isn't actually in the regulations.

looks like the trappers association should publish a cookbook. i'd love a coyote pie recipe.

 

[gleurpy]

guess i'm on a role tonight...

i'm tired of this old song and dance about these enforcement officers out to pin you for everything they can. do people think they're any different than cops? how many speeding tickets do you think could be issued everyday (especially if you follow the exact letter of the law) and how many are?

how many people are pulled over for speeding and how many are charged? are police not able to give warnings?

i mean, big picture, the government is losing millions of $$$$ per day because everyone going 1 km/hr over the limit is potential income. you could be a super cop if you start handing out tickets for 5 km/hr over, right?

conservation officers have the same options when giving warning for minor infractions. instead of charging you they can choose to educate you especially when your one infraction seems to be something that could be easily misconstrued. and you might be right and they might be wrong, but if you want to fight it, take the ticket and take it to court.

i really hate the mentality of cowering in the corner when you're in the right. thank god the people fighting for our firearm privileges don't take the same approach.

 

[Waye Out There]

The problem with our firearm laws is they predate the federal laws and have not been updated to match. There was a time when each province regulated the possession of firearms as well as transportation of firearms. Our wildlife Act is undergoing a overhaul and once complete the regulations will also be updated. You will see most if not all of the firearm laws pertaining to transportation disappear.

Yep it is only a couple of hundred dollars for the fine but as soon as you pay it you have plead guilty to an offence under the act and a direct result is loss of your hunting privileges for up to 5 years. Still most just pay the fine rather than pay a lawyer to take it to court.

Over the years I wonder how many judges have upheld the definition of a wildlife habitat as it is written as well as preservation of a carcass and shinning a light.

 

[Waye Out There]

Some enforcement officers just like some cops will pin you every chance they get. Thankfully there are not many of them out there, but they are out there. Some of us have met them. I personally know three who would. Maybe it is the wannabe a cop syndrome but it is definitely there.

Of course you can fight them, but either way you lose once the ticket is written. Even if you win you are out the $$$ to pay the lawyer. They have you over a barrel and they know it.

 

[gleurpy]

The problem with our firearm laws is they predate the federal laws and have not been updated to match.

where?

direct result is loss of your hunting privileges for up to 5 years.

no it's not. that's like saying getting caught speeding and you'll lose your license. it takes more than one obscure infraction.

Over the years I wonder how many judges have upheld the definition of a wildlife habitat as it is written as well as preservation of a carcass and shinning a light.

you don't have to wonder. it's all publicly available information. show everyone where that's happened.

edit... since so much of this is semantics i probably should make sure what i'm saying very clearly. show me a case where the only charges are the ones listed above. i've already mentioned they're charges meant to be tacked on and in those circumstances they make might perfect sense. show me cases where the laws are taken out of context but still literally applied and resulted in a guilty verdict. i.e.. taking my gun to tim's for a sale, a trapper disposing of beaver carcasses, a hiker using a 6v flashlight to find camp.

 

[gleurpy]

Some enforcement officers just like some cops will pin you every chance they get.

yeah, and they'll have a short career because they actually answer to people higher up. there's a reason you don't have to worry about a ticket for 5 km over even though it's possible to get charged.