junko
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by junko on Dec 12, 2014 9:45:20 GMT -4
And here's something... Why don't people arguing about this shit just admit what the real issue is? They don't want people shooting THEIR DEER. I'm not saying their other concerns aren't valid but come on. Everyone pretends like it's the furthest thing form their mind and it's total bullshit.
I have some land that I've tried to improve a bit and my buddy releases pheasants on it. You betcha it burns my ass to think other people are shooting MY pheasants. We spent the time and money on the birds and once they're released anyone can hunt my land and clean them out. I don't have my land posted and while it bugs me, if it was that big an issue for me, I'd pack up and move to a province where I COULD post my land.
You have guys spending countless hours and dollars improving their land and putting in plots and stands; they try to manage the deer on their property by only taking does or older bucks. Do these guys ever have an issue with someone shooting THEIR deer? Nope, that's cool, just don't drop a cigarette butt on the ground. Give me a f'in break. Of course it's a huge concern for them.
They hang their hats on the BS excuses like property damage and safety, which really pissed me off because what they're really saying is that hunters are dangerous assholes roaming around the woods. Jesus Christ, thanks! Nothing like hunters saying that all other hunters are mouth breathing retards that get can't be trusted with a loaded gun. The only way to be safe is to post your property. It's infuriating.
The whole "ethics and morals" vs. the law is a fun one too.
We have hippies telling us that we shouldn't use lead ammo because it's bad for us and it kills birds and hurts the environment. I read the info, I think it could hurt birds, I do my part now and bury stuff that I think birds might get into. Problem solved right? Nope, eagles are falling out the sky. Where are my ethics and morals? I'm a monster because I don't use copper. I'm following the law. Should I be punished because my ethics don't align with the tree huggers.
The tree hugger will argue that changing the law to copper only won't hurt hunting. Just buy copper ammo. Oh, there's none for your gun? Buy a new gun then. It's cheaper than that ATV you bought last year. What's the problem?
The parallels are hilarious. And the best part is that I'm pretty sure most the people wanting the law to be changed to suit their ethics as far as land access go would be on the other side of the fence for the lead vs. copper issue.
That's my rant for today. Just be honest and admit why you don't like the law and if you want to shove your ethics down other people's throats, you better be ready to open wide for the choo-choo train when the time comes to take that taste of your own medicine.
|
|
|
Post by mwo on Dec 12, 2014 9:54:14 GMT -4
Junko, it has nothing to do with the Wildlife, it is free to roam across those imaginary 25 acre lines, right over to your land, the crown land the forestry land anywhere their little legs and wings can take them. Your arguement is full of holes as well as drama. LOL
As well do not get me on roll over Food plots..that is another totally bigger issue....
|
|
junko
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by junko on Dec 12, 2014 9:58:22 GMT -4
Junko, not sure of your involvement over there. However for clarity I am against section 15 of the PPA. However I also understand it to the letter and abide by that particular Act, regardless. Some over there are throwing drama and insults into the situation. Private preserves, land barons, and similar issues. One has nothing to do with the other, but it sounds good, Drama is attractive. In the case of WOT, he knows his stuff, make no mistake, although he is confused over para 4 of the same PPA. Others also know the PPA, inclusive of me. I have been fighting the PPA section 15 for 4 years now, Politically, Legally. That Private Members bill that you dismissed earlier, that is mine. So how is that for transparency? As well, someone cannot use one law to their individual advantage, like WOT is with his trapping adventures and then dismiss other laws because they do not work for him, example Helmets on ATV's. Again for clarity, I intend to challenge the PPA, Politically/Legally until it is amended or I am dead. I don't have any involvement over there. I started posting on both sites at the same time and I think that because I posted links to this site I was banned. I think because I emailed and was never given a reason for my ban. I'm reading the thread, the name calling is kind of going both ways. I'll hand it to that Way out there dude, he takes on ton of heat and insults, but I don't think I've ever seen him stoop to that level. At the same time, he's often very wrong in his interpretation of how things work and doesn't mind presenting his opinion of law as fact when it suits him. I'm not a big fan of section 15 either, BUT I also don't like how high my taxes are. I could move to a different province and be better off. To me they're EXACTLY the same. Both necessary evils. Just like copper ammo, I think changing section 15 would kill hunting in this province. We'll have to agree to disagree because until it changes, we won't know what will happen. Edit: Oh, I'll be the first to admit, I LOVE the drama.
|
|
junko
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by junko on Dec 12, 2014 10:04:28 GMT -4
Junko, it has nothing to do with the Wildlife, it is free to roam across those imaginary 25 acre lines, right over to your land, the crown land the forestry land anywhere their little legs and wings can take them. Your arguement is full of holes as well as drama. LOL As well do not get me on roll over Food plots..that is another totally bigger issue.... It might not have anything to do with wildlife for YOU. That's fair. But you'll never convince me it has EVERYTHING to do with wildlife for the majority. It wasn't an argument, it was a heated rant. But like I stand by my point: Changing section 15 is just as bad as copper ammo.
|
|
|
Post by mwo on Dec 12, 2014 10:05:01 GMT -4
WOT does take a lot. No issues with the arguement being civil, but nobody should be insulted. Yes he does also interpret things a bit different. Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by cochise on Dec 12, 2014 11:49:01 GMT -4
To be fair, it was me who referenced the revision to the PPA in another thread, Lee. Unfortunately, we're at opposite poles when it comes to the necessity and want to have it revised. I've been reading that thread over there, and the thing that keeps getting bantered about, and used frivolously, is the term 'respect'. I have found that there are those people you meet in life that command respect...and then there are those that demand respect. The difference? A person who commands respect is legitimate in their purpose. They are honest, confident, and will show respect to all people they have dealings. Then there are those who demand respect. They are less than honest in their purpose, and seldom, if ever, reciprocate a show of respect..."I am so-and-so...Thou shalt respect me because of it!"...doesn't hold water with me, and never will. Traditionally, those are the people for whom I have no respect, because they don't deserve it. Over there, Pete commands respect. All the others are demanding it. Over the past 40 years, or so, hunting in this province, I have watched the proliferation of signs on the woodlands go from near non-existant to everywhere you now look. Back in those early days, to see a sign you knew there was legitimate purpose for it. Whether it was an unseen house in the area, or livestock, men working...whatever...there was a purpose. It was easy to respect those signs, and everyone did (at least where I hunted). Now-a-days, some signs are there with legitimate purpose...signs are there for people to hide illicit operations...but it is the explosion of private preserves and sanctuaries, whether hunter or anti-hunter, that trully gets my goat. I fully understand and appreciate restricting access when it's for legitimate purpose. But when its intention is to reserve exclusive use of part of the public domain, I simply cannot agree with that. Everyone has access...or noone has access. 'No Hunting' for some means 'No Hunting' for all. That puts everyone at the same access level to the common (and covetted) resource. Just because people own land does not give them privelege over any other person when dealing in the public domain. Now...how do we deal with the 'antis'...'cuz they'll be climbing out of the woodworks.
|
|
|
Post by mwo on Dec 12, 2014 11:58:42 GMT -4
Bob, no sissues from me, i alwasy enjoy reading what you have to say, even though i might not agree. We are at opposite ends of the pole, agreed. i do think there might be a meeting point in between. As far as the respect issue goes, Pete has said the same thing a s others there, just worded differently, there are some there that have posted whom i respect, regardless of differenting opinions, some i do not respect in any manner. The phase "does hold any water" is not a demanding respect phrase. It was mine, as well. I can assure you Bob, I demand absolutely no respect from any one. Those that know me will state that as well. Regardless agreed to disagree with respect for your opinion. Got to go have a a major HR issue here at work, involving very senior staff and a member whom works for me.
|
|
|
Post by cochise on Dec 12, 2014 13:59:19 GMT -4
Lee, There are reasonable people on both sides of this debate...You are certainly one of them...(even though you're on the wrong side !! ...Of course you know I'm kidding ) Command vs. demand?... You fit in the command block. Maybe one day we'll discuss it, amongst gentlemen, over a 'toddy'.
|
|
|
Post by mwo on Dec 12, 2014 14:27:12 GMT -4
Any time Bob, Perhaps we may fish/Hunt together. I know some nice spots for fishing. Nice walking through old Meadows up a wild remote river. No ATV required
|
|
junko
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by junko on Dec 12, 2014 15:05:49 GMT -4
Lee, There are reasonable people on both sides of this debate...You are certainly one of them...(even though you're on the wrong side !! ...Of course you know I'm kidding ) Command vs. demand?... You fit in the command block. Maybe one day we'll discuss it, amongst gentlemen, over a 'toddy'. It's unfortunate that the reasonable people seem to be getting drowned out. Lord tunderin Christ, who'da thought livin in the back country could make a person so friggin sanctimonious?
|
|
junko
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by junko on Dec 16, 2014 23:04:20 GMT -4
Why do people keep mentioning section 4 of the Property Act and think that asking someone to leave your property will magically make section 15 irrelevant? It keeps coming up: novascotiahunting.com/forums/index.php?/topic/31593-does-anyone-have-the-correct-anwser/page-11#entry388873Section 4 buttons up section 3. If you look at section 3, you can see that your driveway isn't listed. If you don't want someone there you have to post it(3(1)(e)). If it's posted they're breaking the law if they walk up it and they can pay 500 buckaroos. If it's not posted, it's legal for them to enter, however, as per section 4, they must leave when told. If they don't, they're now breaking the law and can pay 500 buckaroos. That's what section 4 covers. Notice the "without legal justification" part in section 4? Someone's legal justification for hunting on your forested land IS section 15 of the SAME ACT. Section 15: No person may be prosecuted for contravening ANY NOTICE given pursuant to this Act prohibiting entry or prohibiting activity on forest land... "Any Notice" is verbal or written. What is verbal notice if it isn't, "get off my land"? How is this confusing? If you think 4 overrides 15 then we now have a legal paradox because 15 overrides 4. The act isn't that big, is it possible no one has ever noticed that? No. It ain't possible The document from DNR covers this, the NSFA covers the same topic here: nsfa-fane.ca/educational-resources/environmental-law-qa/neighbors/# Question 20. If section 4 is the hammer to beat people with, why don't either of these sources highlight section 4 in blinking neon as the panacea to the entire issue? Answer: Because it ain't. A person should not EVER be prosecuted for trespassing while doing something legal defined under section 15 regardless of how they're informed. Simple. They both mention that you can sue or seek an injunction. That's it. I know it can be tricky aligning Federal and Provincial laws and town by-laws and conflicting law in different acts but it's ALL IN ONE ACT.
|
|
|
Post by mwo on Dec 17, 2014 4:11:37 GMT -4
Section 4 is its own Para. There are no withstanding, whereas or superseding clauses, no references made to or from it WRT section 15. I have already challenged this with the province It stands on its own. When asked to leave, you must. Give them a call, Department of Justice. When I challenged the PPA, 3-4 years ago through my MLA, it turned interesting. He sent my challenge through the legal beagles within the province. Their interpretation of the act, in conjunction with trespassing, differed greatly. Some of the subsequent corespondence had trespassing trumping all other issues.
That thread is now in page 11. That same topic is raised year after year. Same end results. Most of the same folks year after year. Insert one or two new guys, a few of whom are downright insulting and abusive. However same old stuff, those for, those against. On this site it is the same posters as well, however on this site the Mods/Admin will not allow insults or trolls, as well this site I find far more respectful of each other’s views. No matter what might ever happen, should the PPA ever be amended, it will make no difference. Those that obey no laws will continue to obey no laws, those that respect others will always seek permission when they are able, which is the respectful thing to do. All you need to do is look no further than agricultural lands, off limits without permission. However most never ask, they just walk on in, same would apply to forested lands, whether posted or not. Keeping Hunters and Hunting in a positive perspective, rather than having a population dislike us, is to our advantage, no matter what law is written. As time passes, hunter populations will burn off, landowners having significant numbers and power, who do you think will win out? I drove to work this AM, about 100 Kms from the valley to HRM. Most of which was unposted forested lands. Same situation if you drive the 102 to Truro, 103 to the South Shore, 104 through Northern NS. Then add in all the other rural roads, Middleton to New Germany, Kentville to New Ross, Windsor to Chester, Windsor to Rawdon, all the forestry roads, all the crowns land, forested and unposted for the most part. What good would come out of some hunter challenging a landowner whom had a small property, posted? There is a lot of land out there, forested and unposted. Regardless, you are well written, you should engage over there, far more opportunity for debate than here.
|
|
junko
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by junko on Dec 17, 2014 9:54:49 GMT -4
Section 4 is its own Para. There are no withstanding, whereas or superseding clauses, no references made to or from it WRT section 15. I have already challenged this with the province It stands on its own. When asked to leave, you must. Give them a call, Department of Justice. When I challenged the PPA, 3-4 years ago through my MLA, it turned interesting. He sent my challenge through the legal beagles within the province. Their interpretation of the act, in conjunction with trespassing, differed greatly. Some of the subsequent corespondence had trespassing trumping all other issues. That thread is now in page 11. That same topic is raised year after year. Same end results. Most of the same folks year after year. Insert one or two new guys, a few of whom are downright insulting and abusive. However same old stuff, those for, those against. On this site it is the same posters as well, however on this site the Mods/Admin will not allow insults or trolls, as well this site I find far more respectful of each other’s views. No matter what might ever happen, should the PPA ever be amended, it will make no difference. Those that obey no laws will continue to obey no laws, those that respect others will always seek permission when they are able, which is the respectful thing to do. All you need to do is look no further than agricultural lands, off limits without permission. However most never ask, they just walk on in, same would apply to forested lands, whether posted or not. Keeping Hunters and Hunting in a positive perspective, rather than having a population dislike us, is to our advantage, no matter what law is written. As time passes, hunter populations will burn off, landowners having significant numbers and power, who do you think will win out? I drove to work this AM, about 100 Kms from the valley to HRM. Most of which was unposted forested lands. Same situation if you drive the 102 to Truro, 103 to the South Shore, 104 through Northern NS. Then add in all the other rural roads, Middleton to New Germany, Kentville to New Ross, Windsor to Chester, Windsor to Rawdon, all the forestry roads, all the crowns land, forested and unposted for the most part. What good would come out of some hunter challenging a landowner whom had a small property, posted? There is a lot of land out there, forested and unposted. Regardless, you are well written, you should engage over there, far more opportunity for debate than here. Section 4 says: 4 Every person who, without legal justification, whether conferred by an enactment or otherwise, remains on premises after being directed to leave by the occupier of the premises or a person authorized by the occupier is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than five hundred dollars. R.S., c. 363, s. 4. In order for it to work the way you're saying, in my mind, you'd have to strike "without legal justification, whether conferred by an enactment or otherwise," because I'm not sure how to argue that section 15 is not "legal justification". I can't engage over there. I think I was banned. I can't create an account or use my old one. Even emails to the webmaster get bounced back. I guess they're not accepting new members. I notice the Criminal Code is popping up over there now. Rights and privileges. Things are starting to get twisted. I'm not going to address Homer Simpson's views because it's obvious at this point he's talking out his ass. He thinks sections 4 and 15 are from two different acts. Bob Leblanc does a good job of describing what could go down from a Criminal Code perspective, but overlooks a bit of wording that could have the landowner in hot water. 35. (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they either believe on reasonable grounds that they are in peaceable possession of property or are acting under the authority of, or lawfully assisting, a person whom they believe on reasonable grounds is in peaceable possession of property; (b) they believe on reasonable grounds that another person (i) is about to enter, is entering or has entered the property without being entitled by law to do so, So yes, his scenario could play out in the landowners favour the first time. As in the landowner can use reasonable force to remove a hunter without being charged for assault. However, let's assume the responding authorities do their job correctly and inform the landowner of section 15 and of their path for civil recourse. If the same scenario plays out the next day in the exact same way, the landowner is now assaulting the hunter and/or interfering with a lawful hunt. NS law allows inspectors for the Dept of Environment to trespass on my land to do inspections. The first time I reasonably escort one off of my land, I'm protected from being charged with assault under the Criminal Code. Like they did with Mr. Hicks, they're still free to charge me with other stuff. Once I'm made aware of the law that allows them to trespass, I'm no longer protected by Defense of Property. So be careful, that law is a get out of jail free card with one use in lawful scenarios. Edit: Anyone want to discuss the two deer season next?
|
|
|
Post by CanadianGoldenEagle on Dec 25, 2014 13:02:21 GMT -4
I believe Bob is a member on this site so it would be good to see his view of your comments above. The other site, which shall not be named, has been going for about a decade now and so has a lot of people who are stuck in their ways as well as very pally with each other offline, so moderators turn a blind eye towards a lot of things. This site on the other hand has only been up and running since the start of 2014 and the mods/admins all know each other through the site, not personally.
To reference your comments regarding assault I would also like to get clarification. It is my understanding from all assault laws, not just hunting/PPA related, that tf you do not touch the other person at all, or curse at them, you cannot be charged with assault. It is very possible to escort somebody from premises without touching or threatening them at all. If they refuse to leave quietly then it's a matter for the authorities to assist with their removal. They can be the ones who are charged with assault and are more accustomed to dealing with awkward people.
It's good that there's healthy discussion on here but I'd rather it was more unique discussions, not dragging a discussion from the other site to get views here. Your contributions are always very welcome and received though.
|
|