Alberta Govn't Says Squatch Research - Form Of Hunting

[Guest thermalman]

"At 8:10 pm, in the park, with a thermal camera." The officers were likely thinking you were out scouting for a poaching expedition. At that point, the sasquatch theory would have convinced them to throw you out of there. Think about how this all sounds to them, given the time and equipment you had?

[Guest Lone Squatcher]

Did you have a gun with you? Had it been me, I would have just said I was out for a week of back country camping and leave it at that. I have no idea how the Canadian legal system works, but I suspect that a good lawyer could tear this to pieces, although it may not be worth the money. Do you have documentation from when you applied for a research permit?

No i did not have a gun with me.

I applied for a research permitt on line

Could you be more specific about what organization the "group of officers" belonged to? Thank you.

This is the definition of "Hunting" in BC. If you are carrying a knife it can be considered a "weapon" so it is sort of a "catch-all". Maybe Alberta has the same sort of definiton but I can't find it in the Alberta Regulations on-line.

Hunt & Hunting - includes shooting at,

attracting, searching for, chasing, pursuing, following

after or on the trail of, stalking, or lying

in wait for wildlife or attempting to do any of

those things, whether or not the wildlife is then

or subsequently wounded, killed or captured:

(a) with intention to capture the wildlife, or

( while in possession of a firearm or other

weapon.

As far as not confiscationg or hauling someone off to jail that maybe is the officer's discretion coming into play.

You know what, I don't care what the govn't definition of hunting is. Under that definition, a bird watcher can be concidered hunting. Thats just plain stupid. I do not care what anyone says, Hunting is when you take your gun or bow and go out and kill an animal for food. Thats hunting, bottom line.

"At 8:10 pm, in the park, with a thermal camera." The officers were likely thinking you were out scouting for a poaching expedition. At that point, the sasquatch theory would have convinced them to throw you out of there. Think about how this all sounds to them, given the time and equipment you had?

No, they know and believe I was doing sasquatch research.

I just sent a link to this post to John Stewert.

Edited June 22, 2012 by MikeG
.....profanities and personal comment removed

[Midnight Owl]

I guess then if you were searching for, stalking or lying in wait for anything and had even a pocket knife in your possession, they could apply the hunting definition to your activites...WOW...we're sure not in Kansas.....

[Guest]

Surely, here in Texas if the game warden asked if you were out hunting Sasquatch with no weapons he would almost offer to give you some. :tease:

I jest certainly but it certainly is different in the great white north. Maybe that's why it still is what it is.

[Guest Transformer]

You know what, I don't care what the govn't definition of hunting is. Under that definition, a bird watcher can be concidered hunting. Thats just plain stupid. I do not care what anyone says, Hunting is when you take your gun or bow and go out and kill an animal for food. Thats hunting, bottom line.

No, they know and believe I was doing sasquatch research.

I just sent a link to this post to John Stewert.

Whether or not you like the law it still applies in BC and real hunters are very happy with it. It sure cut down on a lot of poaching activity by people who did their hunting and scouting of the area unarmed (gun hidden near camp) and at night only to quickly return with the gun to kill any game found. Sometimes a person's attitude can alter the willingness of law enforcement people to cut a person some slack or hold them to the absolute letter of the law. I'm not saying that this applies in your case but just as a general reminder to everyone.

I still haven't got an answer to which law enforcement people are alleged to have been told not to continue with sasquatch investigations near Slave Lake. Skywalker? Lone Squatcher? Bueller?

Edited June 23, 2012 by Transformer

[Guest thermalman]

Agreed. Attitude has a huge role in what law enforcement officials would decide to do with you.

[Guest wudewasa]

thermal,

Attitude on which side?

I always try to be professional with law enforcement, as they have a difficult job to do. That being said, while I RESPECT the badge, I refuse to FEAR it!

The majority of my interactions with LE have been business as usual, but a few have been extremely abusive from the officer's actions. It doesn't matter if the guy had a bad night- we've all had bad nights. While Lone Squatcher cooperated, the warning that his was given was bogus, and it could be argued that he was bullied by someone hiding behind their authority to do so. They can do this, but it's wrong.

While I would enjoy hearing the perspective from the officers involved in this situation, the document that Lone Squatcher provided is good evidence of enforcement with no clear violation.

Keep standing up for your rights Lone Sqautcher!

[Guest thermalman]

Attitude towards the law officials. I've never had a problem with them as long as you give them the respect they expect. I also agree that some of them have attitude where I've been forced to bite my tongue.

[Guest Transformer]

thermal,

Attitude on which side?

I always try to be professional with law enforcement, as they have a difficult job to do. That being said, while I RESPECT the badge, I refuse to FEAR it!

The majority of my interactions with LE have been business as usual, but a few have been extremely abusive from the officer's actions. It doesn't matter if the guy had a bad night- we've all had bad nights. While Lone Squatcher cooperated, the warning that his was given was bogus, and it could be argued that he was bullied by someone hiding behind their authority to do so. They can do this, but it's wrong.

While I would enjoy hearing the perspective from the officers involved in this situation, the document that Lone Squatcher provided is good evidence of enforcement with no clear violation.

Keep standing up for your rights Lone Sqautcher!

Were you there? What legal opinion do you have that the ticket and expulsion that he got was "bogus" or "good evidence of enforcement with no clear violation"? Are you an expert on Alberta, Canada laws and enforcement regarding hunting?

[Guest]

Sorry Transformer, I have not been to back to this post since I last posted. The incident allegedly occurred at Slave Lake and involved the fish and Wildlife. I walk a fine line when discussing these things as I am in casual contact with a couple of key people in that division and they make the rules that control my very livelihood. This is speculation of course, but for them to start an investigation one of them must have seen one. Fish and Wildlife division treats this subject like Kryptonite. By the same token, getting them to stop without further attempt would likely require pulling them "in the loop". Whatever the case someone likely in the loop treated Lone Squatchers attempt at Sasquatch research very seriously. As far as being an expert on Alberta law, Its all governed by the wildlife act. But even individual officers have differing interpretations of said act. I have been informed that you cannot be charged with killing a Sasquatch in Alberta as the creature is "not on the books". They also told me it would be the 1st and last and I would not be allowed to keep it. That can be interpreted as "we are going to sit on this subject until we have no choice". This is a strange incident and if he was charged with hunting as defined under the wildlife act he would be in very serious trouble.

[Guest thermalman]

[Guest wudewasa]

Well "Hunt wildlife without licence" when the guy had no weapon to hunt with seems bogus to me, probably not for you. Your "Are you an expert" ploy doesn't mean much to me. Nope not an expert on Canada's laws, but that doesn't make me ignorant of the situation. You want to argue, you win, feel good about it. You want to discuss and learn, then I'll stay interested.

I knew a guy that enjoyed photographing snakes that would use asphalt roads to warm themselves on. He was in South Carolina one day taking a pic of a snake on the road, and a cop pulled up and inquired what he was doing. The man told him the truth, and the cop called in other patrol cars and proceeded to search his vehicle, yell at him, intimidate and finally after several hours of having their fun let the guy go with a warning of "If you come back here again we'll arrest you, impound your car and throw away the key." The citizen violated no laws yet the photographer's civil rights were clearly violated. Maybe Canada is different, but I can't stand a bully, legal or otherwise.

[Guest]

^That guy should file an offical complaint, but I can understand his reluctance if his livlihood is directly controlled by F&W.

The fact is, he had no intent to capture the BF (that he has expressed), so "hunting" would have been inapplicable.

Here's hoping Stewart makes fun of the gov't on this and not the researcher... (NOT kidding).

[Guest]

wierd

[Guest SquatchinNY]

Get a licsence anyway, then go back.