B.C. hunters convicted by own photos, 13 years later

bearkilr said:
If it's supposed to be public knowledge you can find it on CanLII otherwise I'd be careful of what names get posted on a public forum.

Maybe we need a "Witchhunt and whistleblower" forum on CGN. :)
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't it be public information? In BC you can get information of everyone that goes to court and is convicted for wildlife infractions.
 
Any time an illegal hunt gets found out and prosecuted, I say it's a good thing.

To those who are arguing about the cost to prosecute this crime, I suggest that cost of prosecution should never be a consideration when deciding whether or not to pursue a crime. ALL crimes should be prosecuted, even the expensive to prosecute ones. Any other policy is simply dangerous precedent.
 
FLHTCUI said:
If it where an aboriginal issue the bands involved would have dealt with it in another way...
Click to expand...

Around here it's called "fine option", meaning someone signs a piece of paper saying that the offender has done X amount of community work in lieu of paying the monetary amount. Not very profitable for the crown.

But that's another story altogether.
 
Gatehouse said:
Why wouldn't it be public information? In BC you can get information of everyone that goes to court and is convicted for wildlife infractions.
Click to expand...

it is a public information for sure and i get it at the court house. nothing on CANLII yet.

i wont release the names here as sheephunter was trying to do something with his lawyer and i wont help him.

PM Clarke and you will see the light ...
 
av80r said:
Me thinks there must be a little more to this story. I am 100% against any poaching and agree with prosecuting...but to be tipped off over a decade later in the middle of nowhere and put that kind of resources to the case......
Me thinks this is like getting capone on tax evasion. Surely there was a bigger issue and this is just what stuck or was the easiest way. Makes no sense, especially with everyone's budgets tight.
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you but probably 90% of police or whatever outfits investigations are a waste of resources. It's the cost of doing business. Unfortunately.
 
Sorry, don't buy the 'didn't know where they were B.S., they're professionals, would have had at least a map and compass and would know their area, if they didn't it's their own damn fault.
If someone else had poached in their area, they'd likely be the first to cry foul and demand the maximum penalty be given to the offenders.
 
wbaad said:
Exactly. I'm sure there is a better use of money and also preventing current poaching should be the priority.
I'm not saying what they did was right. You can't un hunt them!
Click to expand...
who is to say they are not suspected of much more, and continual poaching and this just happened to be the incident that could be proven out of many?
 
Brian46 said:
who is to say they are not suspected of much more, and continual poaching and this just happened to be the incident that could be proven out of many?
Click to expand...

Along with the lack of intent, a number of mitigating circumstances were highlighted by the lawyers and in Ruddy’s decision.

They include the guilty pleas which helped avoid what could have been a complex trial and the noted remorse each has for the situation.

It was also pointed out that neither MacKenzie nor Makasoff have a major history with the justice system.

http://www.whitehorsestar.com/News/hunters-said-they-didn-t-know-they-were-in-yukon
 
Not that I've ever been there but if you get dropped off on the west end of Bennet lake then shoot a critter 14 km inside the Yukon when you're supposed to be in BC how is that a mistake?

Just a quick google map look there is only one arm of the lake that is about 16 km in BC so did they really go 30 km North without knowing it? Or is it more likely they were dropped off on the west arm which looks like it is entirely in Yukon? Which means they never even tried to go to BC. Just spitballing here.
 
bearkilr said:
Along with the lack of intent, a number of mitigating circumstances were highlighted by the lawyers and in Ruddy’s decision.

They include the guilty pleas which helped avoid what could have been a complex trial and the noted remorse each has for the situation.

It was also pointed out that neither MacKenzie nor Makasoff have a major history with the justice system.

http://www.whitehorsestar.com/News/hunters-said-they-didn-t-know-they-were-in-yukon
Click to expand...

Yup,. they pled guilty, because they had known all along they had crossed the border. Got offered a deal and they took it. I think most people that knew they had poached and knew the Crown had overwhelming evidence would have taken that deal...They get to pretend they were "lost" and completely incapable of any backcountry navigation but not face far heavier fines.
 
Gatehouse said:
Yup,. they pled guilty, because they had known all along they had crossed the border. Got offered a deal and they took it. I think most people that knew they had poached and knew the Crown had overwhelming evidence would have taken that deal...They get to pretend they were "lost" and completely incapable of any backcountry navigation but not face far heavier fines.
Click to expand...

I wonder what that overwhelming evidence would be? I don't think cell phones had GPS tagging on pictures in 2002. If they had a handheld GPS with coordinates of where they were, I doubt the crown would've struck a deal. I think we have a case here of two guys that just happen to not be common criminals. I don't think scenery pictures alone would hold up in court.
Though I'm not saying it would be proper, I'm sure a good lawyer could've beaten the charges, but time and money definitely came into play for both sides.

Regardless, for those who think these fines were a "slap on the wrist", you should come to a MB court and witness wildlife fines. They're pathetic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom