Fish and Game Regulation Violations

[OldTimer]

Hey,

I read much on other forums and occasionally in newspaper articles about persons being charged with violation of the fish and game regulations.

However, I rarely see much ink, or on line information detailing the names of those persons ultimately ordered to pay fines. Yes – we do see things regarding extraordinary cases……… but the small poaching and snagging cases are, for the most part, invisible and not published.

The stigma of being charged – then having that information widely published and available permanently - and the resultant negative effect on a person’s image and reputation - I believe - is a large, if not a much larger, deterrent than the fines that may result presently.

Here’s the MNR enforcement web page:

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/business/enforcement/

Perhaps it should have an official downloadable listing that is “center staged” and which in clear and simple terms describes/lists ALL those person’s charged, their home city name, their age, and the what, the when, the where, those co-charged at the time & all the penalty information regarding the violation over the last 5 years………... with a permanent archive available on line for charges before that time - that compiles repeats as well.

Possibly it is time for Ontario (if not all of Canada) to include some of these violations, and all repeat offenders of any charge, under the criminal code. This has a major impact on bonding, passports, visas, citizenship possibilities, and international travel of the jerks.

Comments?

Regards,

Oldtimer

[Eli]

Wait a sec, are you saying that as things stand now, if you're charged and convicted of poaching you do not receive a criminal record?

---

I can see them not giving criminal records for something minor (i.e. using barbs in a 'barbless' water or fishing bait in a flyfish only stream), but more serious violations should be treated as real crimes -- which they are -- and their ramifications should go beyond just having to pay a fine.

[OldTimer]

This is the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act:

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statute...7f41_e.htm

This is the Criminal Code:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/

**
Serious violations under the conservation act can, and occasionally do, result in hefty fines and (rarely) imprisonment, just as violations under the Highway Traffic Act can. Records are kept of such - But neither situation generates a “criminal” record with its far reaching and serious effects on ones future and freedoms.

Repeat offences may trigger a criminal charge - coming from contempt or the ignoring of court orders.

I agree that some minor infractions do only require a "slap on the wrist".......... but those who knowingly contravene the act regarding more serious offences should get whacked real hard with permanent punitive implications.

OT

[tweedwolfscream]

(09-29-2013 10:08 PM)Eli Wrote:  Wait a sec, are you saying that as things stand now, if you're charged and convicted of poaching you do not receive a criminal record?

Indeed.

Criminal law - that is, laws whose violators get criminal records and possibly jail time - is an exclusively federal jurisdiction. It consists of the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Youth Criminal Justice Act, and a few others.

Hunting and fishing law is an exclusively provincial jurisdiction. Ontario has its FWCA and other provinces have their equivalent.

So there's really no way to make conservation violations criminal without tweaking the constitution, or finding some creative legal work-around.

I mean, you could probably create some federal crimes that relate to resource abuse, in fact maybe someone can think of examples that already exist, but you couldn't make a crime out of violating Ontario's fishing regulations as a whole.

[OldTimer]

National Park fishing regulations do replace and override provincial regulations in all of Canada within those parks.

I doubt a constitutional change is required, and believe that we are quite creative here in Canada and that a way could be found.

OT

[Eli]

(10-02-2013 03:30 PM)OldTimer Wrote:  National Park fishing regulations do replace and override provincial regulations in all of Canada within those parks.

I doubt a constitutional change is required, and believe that we are quite creative here in Canada and that a way could be found.

OT

Thanks for the input OT.
I'm sure we're more than creative enough and it would take surprisingly little to make poaching an actual crime, we just lack political will to actually work towards something like that.

Can you think of a single politician currently in power (in any level of government) who actually cares about our natural resources? And I mean truly cares, beyond just how much a given resource can be sold for to the Chinese. I can't.

[OldTimer]

Politicians will play the political game and portray the required accepted image by the "mob". That is politics.

Elected good men and good ladies actually can have a brain, and be capable of correct and logical thought - leading to their personal "position".

I believe that we do have many such individuals in our government. And yes - they do "truly" care about our natural resources.

But this is a shore fishing forum ............ and our 2 cents worth is worth exactly that............. today..... smile.

Cheers,

OldTimer

[tweedwolfscream]

OK you got me there, provinces don't have exclusive control of ALL fish and game. The feds control lands and resources within national parks, along with migratory birds and marine fisheries. That's why hunters need to get a migratory bird stamp from the post office to go with their small game license from the MNR, why anglers in coastal provinces need a seperate fishing license for freshwater (provincial) and tidal water (federal) fishing, and yes, why national parks have their own fishing permits and seasons.

But those federal hunting and fishing regs still aren't criminal laws, and there are no criminal laws that provinces control.

[OldTimer]

Exactly the thing(s) that needs to be addressed.

Also - The penalties have not kept pace with incomes. To some a $100 fine is less than they spend on their cells and internet monthly....etc.... so it's not a big deal whatsoever.

We need some extreme hurt factor applied with set high minimums, and unavoidable bye bye time for the severe stuff.

Look at it this way............ after the first time you burnt yourself doing something (whatever)......... did you do it again knowingly?

OT