Question about CO behaviour
- Thread starter daveg01
- Start date
My question to you was rhetorical. Do you know what that means or do I need to explain that to you as well? Oh, you were too busy mocking to understand what I wrote. Got it!
Oh, a rhetorical question! You certainly are a clever little bedwetter, aren't you?
(That was a rhetorical question, BTW)
- Location
- Prince Albert, Sk
I think people need to worry about themselves more and others less.
You know what happens when you go sticking your nose in other peoples business, sometimes it gets broke!
When it directly effects you making it your business then think about saying something, other than that, #### happens and let it be.
You know what happens when you go sticking your nose in other peoples business, sometimes it gets broke!
When it directly effects you making it your business then think about saying something, other than that, #### happens and let it be.
That's real rich, mocking people for their opinion, in a thread, on a forum which is meant for discussion. If the opinion was irrational, factually wrong, or the people ignorant I'd possibly be inclined to agree with you, but sadly it's not(it's based on exactly what we've been told). Nobody is sticking their nose into someone's business. There's no names involved nor is anyone getting personal; minus yourself.
As for no real harm done? That's completely subjective. Who are you to say no harm was done? Was he using his position of authority to his advantage? Blatantly obvious answer, yes. Have other COs done similar things while getting current hunters kicked out? Yes, but we simply don't know where he would have taken it; thus not discussing it. Was it conflict of interest? Yes. Should he be approaching his search for land in that manner? I believe most would agree, no. I'd like to hear of one person who would scout an area for a month, ask farmers for permission AND when denied to ask for names and numbers. Someone's hunting there, get over it, and to ask such information for personal reasons while on-duty is very unethical no matter how you look at it. Again, not saying he had bad intentions, maybe he would have asked to tag-along with them.
Should he be punished? Fired? Suspended? No, nobody has said this is a severe issue that needs some sort of investigation, consequence, or punishment. Even the OP isn't trying to make an issue of it, just wants it addressed. If people were ripping the guy apart without knowing his true intentions, I'd agree people should back off a bit, but are they? Should he be approached by his superiors and advised in proper etiquette while in uniform? I believe so, and according to those same people, yes.
As mentioned above, the OP felt the need to share the story and inquired our opinions on it. Nobody is interfering nor getting involved in their business(unless someone is calling in about it randomly?). And on the contrary this can be helpful to ANYONE here, what if it happens to you? What if like in other cases you basically are harassed by a CO?(tells landowner you break laws and should kick you out, then gets permission himself). I think many people could appreciate what he's going through and how it's taken care of(not much of a problem for the situation in question). Goes for landowners too, as in this case he acted appropriately. Was no reason to disclose the information asked.
Well, sometimes threads need to be mocked, it's just that simple.
There's been all sort of talk on this thread about the CO being unethical, trying to intimidate, abusing his authority etc...without really knowing
The real story might just as likely be that the CO is a real good dude and didn't even think that talking to the farmer while he was in uniform was a big deal and would have such a profound effect on some people's lives.
Gatehouse, a number of people on here have posted rational responses to the original question. You, on the other hand, extrapolated out that we were getting involved in other peoples business and took it upon yourself to tell us to mind our own business as well as "mock" us with demeaning names. LOL
Learn to read, then learn to think. Then come back, join the discussion and try to contribute rather then demonstrate what a jackass you are.
Learn to read, then learn to think. Then come back, join the discussion and try to contribute rather then demonstrate what a jackass you are.
So someone tells you a story about something that happened when you were not even present, there was no harm done, there are no "victims" and you take it upon yourself to make a complaint to the MNR office and you don't think that is sticking your nose in someone elses business? If it's not sticking your nose where it doesn't belong, then what is it?
Some of you guys remind me of old women gossiping, the way you take a simple conversation/request and twist it into some great conspiracy. What if it had been the hydro guy that came by to check the meter and he asked the same question. Should we call the office and complain?
Let's not forget that archery season has been open since oct 1. He could have been in the area making sure there are no gun shots ringing out, and trying to gain permission to hunt. If I'm out and about in the work truck and stumble across a promissibg area, you're damn right I am gonna start talking to some farmers! I see no problem with a CO doing the same thing. I don't see how his uniform is some intimidation tactic, if he is doing an investigation, or wants to check hunters he does not need the landowners permission.
Jeez Gatehouse, READ what I wrote. I never said call the MNR, I never called them myself and I didn't endorse anyone else calling them.
I said, in answer to the original story/question, that, given what we have been told, I thought it was unethical for a uniformed, on duty CO to be asking for hunting permission and that his request for the names and phone numbers of people who had been given permission didn't smell right to me and added to my unease about his motives.
If you think this thread is just a bunch of old women gossiping, than don't read it. No one is forcing you to and any negative remark directed at you that you may feel the need to respond to is the result of you insulting other posters.
I said, in answer to the original story/question, that, given what we have been told, I thought it was unethical for a uniformed, on duty CO to be asking for hunting permission and that his request for the names and phone numbers of people who had been given permission didn't smell right to me and added to my unease about his motives.
If you think this thread is just a bunch of old women gossiping, than don't read it. No one is forcing you to and any negative remark directed at you that you may feel the need to respond to is the result of you insulting other posters.
So someone tells you a story about something that happened when you were not even present, there was no harm done, there are no "victims" and you take it upon yourself to make a complaint to the MNR office and you don't think that is sticking your nose in someone elses business? If it's not sticking your nose where it doesn't belong, then what is it?
Some of you guys remind me of old women gossiping, the way you take a simple conversation/request and twist it into some great conspiracy. What if it had been the hydro guy that came by to check the meter and he asked the same question. Should we call the office and complain?
The reason I feel it may be unethical is there is the potential for abuse of power through intimidation. Had the farmer been a different sort, he may have been intimidated into allowing permission to be granted when he really didn't want to. Under those circumstances there would then be a victim.
And if you can't see the difference between the potential for abuse by a meter reader and a CO, well I can't help you there. One is empowered to read meters with the permission of the house owner, the other is legally empowered to arrest, impound and lay criminal charges.
]
And I said that some people on this thread are conjuring up BS when there probably isn't any there. It might not "smell right" to you but there is a better than average chance that the CO wasn't doing anything except looking for a place to hunt or to join a hunting party and have some fun, and it might not have occurred to him that wearing his uniform would have caused such controversy and panic.
Don't worry, I dont' actually get my feelings hurt by anonymous posters on the intraweb. Thanks for your concern, though.
And I said that some people on this thread are conjuring up BS when there probably isn't any there. It might not "smell right" to you but there is a better than average chance that the CO wasn't doing anything except looking for a place to hunt or to join a hunting party and have some fun, and it might not have occurred to him that wearing his uniform would have caused such controversy and panic.
Don't worry, I dont' actually get my feelings hurt by anonymous posters on the intraweb. Thanks for your concern, though.
And I think that you are pushing the panic button, with no evidence.
I'm just not terrified of CO's. I don't get panicked when they ask me a simple question, uniform or not. If one of them came by my place and wanted to hunt it, I wouldn't care if he was in uniform or not.
I use to go hunt geese prior to my shift, in my uniform, as a former CO, a couple of times. I used my own person vehicle. People I encountered were polite, and knew what i was doing. Something about the OP doesn't sit right with me, as they were on the clock.
Gatehouse, do you understand what ethics are? Have you ever considered why having LEO's behave in an ethical manner is important for the rule of law to be effective? Do you think laws are valuable in our society? Do you think having respect for those laws and those we empower to enforce them on our behalf is important?
Can you separate a discussion of a theoretical situation from a discussion of a situation that has actually occurred?
What make you think that those of us who disagree with your take on this are terrified of CO's and panic when asked a question by one? You don't have any evidence of that. It seems like a pretty big leap to me.
Ethical behavior has nothing to do with whether he is a good guy just looking to make some new hunting friends. In this discussion, it's about how one behaves as a representative of the government in his role as a law enforcement officer.
Can you separate a discussion of a theoretical situation from a discussion of a situation that has actually occurred?
What make you think that those of us who disagree with your take on this are terrified of CO's and panic when asked a question by one? You don't have any evidence of that. It seems like a pretty big leap to me.
Ethical behavior has nothing to do with whether he is a good guy just looking to make some new hunting friends. In this discussion, it's about how one behaves as a representative of the government in his role as a law enforcement officer.
- Location
- Prince Albert, Sk
Funny, it HAS happened to me, not exactly like this but along the same lines.
Gov't worker "A" who is buddies with Gov't worker "B" who just happens to be a local CO filed a complaint against Moi because he took exception to me hunting in the same block of crown land.He even went so far as to GPS my stands, make lies about me illegally cutting timber, illegally baiting , and using a rifle during bow season.How do I know this? By the questions that the CO asked me after I called him to ask why he left his card on my stand and had pictures of him on my cam.
It all worked out in the end for me, and it just so happens that I knew the CO as well.
So, like I previously said, it is best to keep your nose out of others business, this is my opinion of course which the OP was asking about.You never know the circumstances surrounding an event unless you are directly involved.
So if Gov't worker "A" didn't stick his nose where it didn't belong I would have no reason to leave him stuck in the ditch if I ever see him knee deep in snow with a shovel.
On a side note, other hunters that use that area that I have talked with normally were given permission to use my stands!!
You said in a earlier post he had been seen sitting in the same place for hours, that is a waste of taxpayer resources.
I mean c'mon is he waiting for the poachers to come to him?
A lot of people on here seem to support this type of thing, but i work 14-16 hours a day 24-25 days of the month, just about half of it goes to paying taxes and if some guy is getting paid to hunt with that money, well lets just say the thought pisses a lot of people off.
Apparently many on this thread are unable to do that. They keep bringing up intimidation, abuse of power, etc when what actually occurred was that a CO asked for permission to hunt on a farm. He didn't make any veiled threats or try to intimidate, just had a conversation.
.
Considering that the responses involved conjuring up all sorts of negative scenarios involving abuse and intimidation, it's not that big a leap.
If the farmer thought it was unethical, he is free to deny permission. What actually occurred was that someone got second hand information and made a big deal about it.
Some guys like to freak out and cry ethics and then make up hypothetical abuse of power scenarios. Others are like me and just see a hunter that happens to be in uniform, that took an opportunity to have a short conversation and ask for permission.
No cause for alarm, no reason to make a complaint at the office. No reason to express outrage as a taxpayer that this civil servant is wasting a few minutes. No need to stick your nose into others business, although I realize that some people just can't resist the compulsion to be nosy.
