Conservation Officers and rifles

Saskatchewan Wildlife Act.

Search of vehicle or boat in high incidence area
61(1) Where, due to the circumstances, time or location, there could reasonably
be expected to be a high incidence of offences against this Act or the regulations in
any area, a wildlife officer may:
(a) request or signal to the person in charge of or operating a vehicle or boat
in the area to stop the vehicle or boat;
(b) search the vehicle or boat for evidence of an offence; and
(c) seize anything that may be evidence of an offence.
(2) The person in charge of or operating a vehicle or boat shall, when requested or
signalled by a wildlife officer pursuant to subsection (1):
(a) immediately bring the vehicle or boat to a safe stop; and
(b) permit the wildlife officer to search the vehicle or boat.
1998, c.W-13.12, s.61.
 
Republiman said:
Just a question for those who mentioned it- what law makes it illegal to lie to a peace officer? If one refuses to answer a question, is it probable cause to search, or is the refusal to speak protected by the Charter?
Click to expand...

There isn't a specific law that states you can't lie to an Officer but if your lying obstructs an Officer in an investigation then you can be charged with obstruction under the Criminal Code.

Good example of that is if someone lies to an Officer and provides a false name to avoid being arrested on warrants and the Officer uncovers this then the obstruction charge could be laid. But if that false name is a known alias for the person the obstruction charge can't be laid.

Really if you are lying, you obviously have something to hide.

Here in Alberta the Fish and Wildlife Officers have no "special" powers, in fact they have pretty much the same as the RCMP, just as the RCMP can enforce the same regulations they do when it comes to wildlife.

As far as searching the vehicle, if your gun is in plain view then they can check it and if you want to push the envelope with them...the obstruction charge would apply again.

If you all want to get technical with the Charter of Rights then you can say that all traffic stops by police and game officers are a breech of your rights not to be detained...however the courts have realized the importance of the stops and have stated that they are not intrusive as well as short term so they allow this to happen. No traffic stop can be a "fishing expedition" if you are being stop the officer has the grounds, whether its because you are in an area with active hunting going on and he/she is checking all vehicles for hunters, or you look like a hunter with orange on or the blood on your tailgate.
 
I ran into the same CO four times this season. Each time he was professional. The first time, he checked tags and rifles (just a real quick glance at the rifles). The other times just asked if we had been successful.

The reason I kept seeing him was that the area landowners had asked for stepped up checks. I had lots of permisions and the CO knew that. At the third meeting, I asked if there was anything specific to look out for and he said "anything that don't seem right".

If you do your best to be friendly, they don't bother you too much. As for probable cause for a search, if you have the proper tags and cancel them when successfull and do all the other good things, there is nothing to worry about. It only takes a couple of minutes, but if YOU are being an "asshat" then it will take longer and that means that they are not out in the field doing their job.
 
There are Co's and COPPS that are great and a few that are not so great who like to exercise their authority (even when they have no just cause)

Ask lots of questions. I always do.

Why am I being questioned?
Why do you feel it is Necesarry to search my vehicle?
Do you mind if I contact legal advice? While I have done nothing wrong, I think you may are infringing upon my rights.

I find that when you ask their full name and ID number and senior Officers name, that you are much more likely to get treated better, as they are reminded that even they have to answer to someone.

For the most part, I find cooperation works best, but don't be afraid to question,take names, and inquire.
 
sealhunter said:
There are Co's and COPPS that are great and a few that are not so great who like to exercise their authority (even when they have no just cause)

Ask lots of questions. I always do.

Why am I being questioned?
Why do you feel it is Necesarry to search my vehicle?
Do you mind if I contact legal advice? While I have done nothing wrong, I think you may are infringing upon my rights.

I find that when you ask their full name and ID number and senior Officers name, that you are much more likely to get treated better, as they are reminded that even they have to answer to someone.

For the most part, I find cooperation works best, but don't be afraid to question,take names, and inquire.
Click to expand...


There are good and there are bad just like any job.

Nothing wrong with questions, by all means ask and you should be provided with answers if what is being done is legal.

Under the Police Act here in Alberta Officers are required to provide their name and regimental number when asked.

Cooperation is best it goes smoother for both parties involved.
 
I've always tried the "friendship" thing. "Hi sir, how are you doing? Great day to be out in the wild." Be thier friend, they'll be yours. I've had COs tell me about big deer in the area, where the bears are hiding, which spots everyones been going. They are just trying to enforce the grey laws and do thier job. (I'm sure theres some A-holes out there. Report them, everyone has a boss)
 
Thankfully every CO I've ran into was very curtious and even helpful in one case. I have heard of a CO giving a ticket for truck hunting to a friend of a friend after he missed a deer so after the hunt he setup a target (daylight) and took a shot at it (while in the area of his truck). He then leaned the rifle against his truck and walked over to check the target. He got the ticket because he leaned the rifle on the truck...and it was called truck hunting. Thats just wrong. I also had a friend of mine who lived in the country have a CO enter his house and do a search without a warrent because someone called him in saying he was spotlighting but he was just riding his quad in his field at night (no rifles or hunting involved). He tried to explain this to the CO but the guy wouldn't leave and barged thru the house looking for guns or game. He then did some silly search over the quad to make sure there was no game or gund hidden in it. That seems like an aweful breach of privacy. Personally, I would have kicked that dudes butt outta my house so fast his head would spin. I doubt he has the rights to enter a private residence like that.
 
off topic but...

i was a bouncer in a nightclub for a FEW YEARSN AN WE OFTEN HAD UNDER COVER COPPS IN THERE LOOKING FOR DRUGS AND MINORS.

One night this undercover cop got a beer in the face from a girl he rubbed wrong (Questioned). He grabbed her and her boyfriend flattened the Copp.

The Copp arrested the guy in the club.

The guy got off with assaulting a police officer cause the under cover guy didn't identify himself. He got off with assault because" he was coming to a ladies defense and honestly believed she may be harmed"

I guess this just shows there are lots of technicalities.


I know a guy who got caught poaching from a freezer search.

They asked what he used to transport the animal as it would be impounded. He said he used his horse. The horse was about 13 yrs old, half blind and senile. (his quad and truck were in the driveway)

They asked what he shot it with. Of course he said a slug out of his cooey 12 gauge. His 30 06 was in a gun rack on the wall.

poachers are ####, but sometimes very clever.
 
Last edited:
Most CO's in BC are pretty good guys, good to hang out wiht and BS with.

Of course, they are also part of law enforemnet, and therfore have a job to do.

When an RCMP or CO asks to search my vehicle, I just say "I do not give you permission to search, but I will not attempt to stop you from doing so"

This is a simple thing. You dont' give permission, but you let them know that you arent' going to physically restrain them...Ball is in thier court.:)
 
This is a simple thing. You dont' give permission, but you let them know that you arent' going to physically restrain them...Ball is in thier court.
Click to expand...
If you're worried about them violating your rights this is , in my mind, the best approach.
I've never had a problem with a CO or RC, they're just doing their jobs. If you treat them civil, 99.9 % of the time you'll get the same treatment. Use Gatehouse's approach for the other .1 % and let their boss deal with them.
 
When a CO asks a person a question beyond the usual name, address, etc, that person has three choices.

1) tell the truth. Usually the best option

2) lie. If caught in the lie, an obstruction charge may be the result.

3) don't say anything. This might be a good option if you're not sure of the situation.

For those interested, this if from BC's Wildlife Act.

Entering premises

89 (1) For the purpose of ensuring that this Act and the regulations are being complied with, an officer may enter and inspect any premises or enclosure in which live wildlife or live fish is kept but, at the request of the owner or occupier, the officer must produce proof of identity.

(2) Despite the Trespass Act, an officer exercising duties under this Act may enter any land, whether enclosed or not but, at the request of the owner or occupier of the land, the officer must produce proof of identity.
Inspection of firearms

90 (1) A person, when requested to do so, for the purposes of this Act or the Firearm Act, by a conservation officer or constable, must immediately produce and permit inspection of a firearm in his or her possession.

(2) A conservation officer or constable may, for the purposes of this Act or the Firearm Act, inspect a firearm found in or on a vehicle or boat.

Inspection of camps

91 An officer may inspect a camp occupied by a hunter or angler.

Search warrants

92 On information in the prescribed form and on oath that there is reasonable ground to believe that an animal or fish, or a portion of an animal or fish, killed, taken or possessed in violation of this Act or the regulations, or about to be illegally exported, is located in or on a building or premises, a justice may by a warrant authorize and direct a conservation officer or constable to enter and search the building or premises and to seize and remove an animal or fish, or a portion of it, found, and it may be disposed of as provided in this Act.

Search without warrant

93 A conservation officer or constable may, without a warrant,

(a) search a person whom he or she believes on reasonable grounds has in his or her possession any wildlife or fish killed, taken or possessed in violation of this Act or the regulations, or about to be illegally exported,

(b) stop and search a motor vehicle, private or chartered aircraft, boat or other conveyance, in or on which he or she believes on reasonable grounds that wildlife or fish is being carried by a person, and

(c) enter and search a shop, public market, storehouse, garage, restaurant, hotel, eating house or camp, in or on which he or she believes on reasonable grounds that wildlife or fish is located.

Seizure

94 (1) A conservation officer or constable may seize wildlife or fish or parts of either wildlife or fish, anything referred to in paragraph (b) and anything found in, on or about a place, building or premises, or in the possession of a person, that might afford evidence of the commission of an offence under this Act, if the conservation officer or constable

(a) finds in the possession of a person, or in, on or about a place or thing referred to in section 93, wildlife or fish that the conservation officer or constable believes on reasonable grounds was killed, taken or possessed in violation of this Act or the regulations, or is about to be illegally exported, or

(b) finds firearms, ammunition, decoys, traps, fishing rods or other devices or materials, implements or appliances for hunting or trapping wildlife or for catching fish, that the conservation officer or constable believes on reasonable grounds were held, kept or used for or in connection with a violation of this Act or the regulations.

(2) A conservation officer may seize wildlife or fish, or parts of either wildlife or fish, in a person's possession if the conservation officer believes on reasonable grounds that the right of property in that wildlife is with the government or remains in the government.

(3) Sections 23 to 24.2 of the Offence Act do not apply in respect of wildlife or fish, or parts of either wildlife or fish, seized under this Act.

Officers empowered to stop vehicles

95 (1) An officer may, for the purposes of this Act, stop a motor vehicle, private or chartered aircraft or boat or other vehicle to determine whether or not the occupants of the vehicle have been hunting, trapping or angling, and to obtain information about wildlife or game fish possessed by them.

(2) A person commits an offence under subsection (1) if the person

(a) fails to stop,

(b) fails to identify himself or herself when requested to do so by the officer,

(c) refuses to give information respecting hunting or fishing, or

(d) being the driver or operator of a motor vehicle, in or on which there is wildlife or game fish or an article or device that may be used for hunting, trapping or fishing, fails, refuses or neglects to stop his or her motor vehicle when signalled or requested to stop by an officer who is in his or her uniform of office or displays his or her official badge.

Obstructing officers

96 (1) A person who resists or obstructs an officer from exercising his or her duty under this Act commits an offence.

(2) An officer is, for the purposes of this Act, a peace officer.
Production of licence or permit

97 If a person who is required to hold a licence, permit or limited entry hunting authorization issued under this Act

(a) fails to produce it for inspection to an officer on request, or

(b) fails or refuses to state his or her name and address to an officer on request,

the person commits an offence.
Click to expand...
 
This is all besides the point if you have a "feather" in your hair ....or a partial feather .
Most poachers that I know don't wear blaze orange while in their vehicle .
 
Last edited:
i have never dealt with a bad one once when i was 19 i got caught shooting gophers out the window of my car well i was suspected of doing so , I came clean and admitted my fault right away then his attitude changed and i was let go with a miner fine
 
jcbruno said:
i have never dealt with a bad one once when i was 19 i got caught shooting gophers out the window of my car well i was suspected of doing so , I came clean and admitted my fault right away then his attitude changed and i was let go with a miner fine
Click to expand...
Yup, they do use thier discretion, so it pays to comply!:)
 
Republiman said:
Declare all game and property to be private, and get rid of the need for tags, hunting licences, etc. Sell off all Crown land and provincial parks.

When landowners are able to charge hunters and anglers a fee for the game they bag on their property, they'll have a definite interest in ensuring that sustainable hunting practices occur. It eliminates subjecting hunters to the Gestapo and eliminates the costly bureaucracy of land administration, relieving the taxpayers.

But hey, maybe giving a monopoly to the government over certain kinds of property (game animals) is a good thing! Where's the hammer and sickle emoticon when you need it...
Click to expand...

Have you hunted there, you would not be so quick to make this supposition. Look harder....
 
Co-operate, don't say anything stupid, let him do his job as he sees fit, and you will be on your way shortly.
Be a dumbass jerk, and he'll keep you there, while he makes your life miserable, as long as possible. (at minimum)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom