Jump to content


Photo

Alberta - Man Charged After Killing 4 Moose


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 Ian

Ian

    NSFAH President

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,779 posts
  • LocationHRM

Posted 26 January 2017 - 06:04 PM

Hunter facing charge after 4 moose shot on rural Alberta property

'It's only a matter of time before these folks come back and try to kill the remainder'

By Zoe Todd
CBC News
Posted: Jan 26, 2017 6:00 AM MT
Last Updated: Jan 26, 2017 6:00 AM MT
Residents in a rural community near Cold Lake, Alta., are on edge after four moose were shot and killed on private property without permission.
While one man faces a charge of unauthorized possession of a firearm in relation to the incident Monday, residents say they fear the killing spree may not be over.

"From where their shots were taken and where the moose were killed, that's a direct line to our house," said Eric Novak, who lives less than 500 metres from where the moose were killed in a hay field.

Novak said he was at his home, on a township road about 12 kilometres south of Cold Lake, when he heard five shots that sounded like rifle fire.

"I hopped in my pickup and wheeled over there," he said. "There were two vehicles at the scene, kind of pointed towards each other, and once they saw my headlights they both kind of took off.

"So I rolled up a little closer and I could see the four dead moose — a bull, a cow, and twin calves laying in the field."

Novak said one of the moose wasn't dead. The bull was struggling to stand.
"They had put a bad shot in him," he said. "I went back home and got a gun and put him down."
Novak called RCMP and the local Fish and Wildlife office while he waited with the carcasses. Then he noticed a moose cow standing in the trees nearby.

"She kept coming back," said Novak, a seasoned hunter. "It was a large cow and those were probably her calves. That's typical if you shoot a calf or a fawn, that the mother won't leave."

RCMP Staff Sgt. Jeremie Landry said Novak's call came in just after 4:30 p.m. Officers drove to the scene, where they found the four dead moose.
One of the men who shot the moose then returned, Landry said. RCMP seized his rifle and ammunition. Landry said charges are pending for unauthorized possession of a firearm.

"These four moose were shot on private property," Landry said. "Permission was not granted to be on that property by the homeowner, although the homeowner declined to proceed with charges relating to trespassing."

The homeowner, who asked not to be named, confirmed to CBC that a group of men asked to hunt on his property the day before the moose were shot.
He said he turned them away because there are too many family homes near his property and moose-hunting season is over.

The hunters were permitted to take the carcasses from the property for their own use.
Fish and Wildlife officers concluded their own investigation but also didn't lay charges.

"In order to proceed with charges related to hunting on occupied land without permission, officers need an official statement from the landowner saying that permission was not, in fact, granted," spokesperson Brendan Cox wrote in a statement to CBC News.

"In this case, it was the landowner's decision not to provide an official statement. There was no evidence of any other offences."

The hunters were allowed to shoot moose in the off-season because they are Indigenous.

"Indigenous people with Treaty status have a constitutionally protected right to hunt big game for food and are not subject to bag limits," the statement said. "The hunters in this case showed officers proof of their Treaty status.
But some people in the community said they're worried the hunters will come back if they don't face repercussions.

"I'm angry. Very angry, as well as scared for my safety," said Abbie Weenk, who lives next door to Novak.

Weenk often takes her two toddlers for walks through the field where the four moose were shot.

"There's another family of moose in this field, along with hundreds of deer, so now they could come back knowing full-well they'll get away with it," she said.

Novak, who also has two toddlers, estimated about five moose still live near the neighbourhood.

"It's only a matter of time before these folks come back and try to kill the remainder because they're there and they're tame," he said. "At what point do they stop? When they're all gone, or when something worse happens and one of my kids gets shot by a stray bullet?

"Now, every time my kids cross that tree line, I'm going to be worried."

-----------------------------------------------

Weblink to CBC article:

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ssion-1.3952303
  • 0

#2 KEVIN

KEVIN

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,283 posts
  • LocationTERENCE BAY, NOVA SCOTIA.

Posted 26 January 2017 - 09:29 PM

"As The World Turns" will be right back after these next 50 posts !!


  • 0
If you take your kids hunting,.....You won't have to go hunting for your kids.....KS/85

#3 nomad

nomad

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • LocationLingan

Posted 27 January 2017 - 12:23 AM

Sad, disgusting and a host of other adjectives are running through my mind after reading this. Even shot two calves.allowed to take them to boot! Something really has to be done in terms of regulation. Wildlife officers are virtually powerless.
  • 0

#4 First Nation HUNTER

First Nation HUNTER

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,068 posts
  • LocationNB

Posted 27 January 2017 - 09:28 AM

I Just have to say..
Besides trespassing there was no laws broken. as far as I can tell from the article.

It doesn't say how many individuals were involved.
Could be meat for 4 or more families.

For the record as far as I know, calves are shot during the regular seasons by licensed hunters in many areas, in many provinces across Canada

So I am wondering, just to be clear,
if it was 4 Non-Native hunters who shot the moose during season, In the same area, under the same circumstances.. would you still feel the same? I don't see anything causing enforcement to have no "power", besides the land owner not wanting to pursue the matter.

If the property owner did not want to pursue trespassing charges, It would not matter who shot the moose ..Native or Not...

So as far as I gather, If non natives had shot these moose, during season, and the property owner did not pursue trespassing charges, They would have also been allowed to tag/take the moose..without issue.

Or at least that's what I get out of the article..

So if you are against calves being shot, it should be just that, you are against calves being shot... Period.
It should have nothing to do with whether they are Native/Non-native in this circumstance.
  • 0
"If they run, they'll just die tired"

browning_sig-exp_zpsa59d45fb.png

- Browning BLR PG, .300wsm
- Savage Model 111, .270win
- Savage Model 11, .243
- My trusty 1958 Winchester model 12, 12ga
- Limbsaver dz30, Easton FMJ and a muzzy

#5 Buckmark

Buckmark

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • LocationBridgewater

Posted 27 January 2017 - 11:24 AM

Pending charge of unauthorized possession of a firearm ??? If this guy shot these moose and he was not authorized to possess a firearm, the outcome should have been totally different, one would think ?? I'm sure he got his rifle and ammo back and that charge never came to be.
  • 0

#6 First Nation HUNTER

First Nation HUNTER

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,068 posts
  • LocationNB

Posted 27 January 2017 - 11:42 AM

"While one man faces a charge of unauthorized possession of a firearm in relation to the incident Monday,"

 

Why are you sure he got his rifle back? I cannot find anything in article that would even remotely support that.


  • 0
"If they run, they'll just die tired"

browning_sig-exp_zpsa59d45fb.png

- Browning BLR PG, .300wsm
- Savage Model 111, .270win
- Savage Model 11, .243
- My trusty 1958 Winchester model 12, 12ga
- Limbsaver dz30, Easton FMJ and a muzzy

#7 JohnHope

JohnHope

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 519 posts
  • LocationHalifax

Posted 27 January 2017 - 11:46 AM

FNH,

 

The other law that seems to be at issue would be how close they are to the houses, but I suspect the regulations with respect to distance may be different in different provinces.  My read of this is that, assuming they were hunting with rifles, they would have been violating the safety regulations with respect to distance from  homes under NS law.

 

I would also note that lots of people of all backgrounds have objected to hunters, also from all backgrounds, hunting too close to subdivisions.

 

While aboriginal rights to hunt are clear, the one issue that does bother me is when the safety regulations are bypassed.  For instance, the ability of aboriginal hunters to hunt at night in Manitoba is, in my opinion, very wrong.  Hunting at night is not safe under any circumstances, and I remain at a loss why that would be permitted, regardless of whether it was done historically (although the article below makes a good point about hunting in remote areas by moonlight, as opposed to using spotlights).

 

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...nting-1.3822524

 

John


  • 0

#8 Buckmark

Buckmark

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • LocationBridgewater

Posted 27 January 2017 - 12:49 PM

they shot 4 moose (possibly up to 6 if the cow was carrying twins) on land that they didn't have permission to hunt, after they were told no......"one" guy was not authorized to possess a firearm......they left the scene when they seen lights......left one animal wounded.....I can honestly tell you, if this was Caucasian people, the outcome would not be the same. Shame on them.....native or not for blatant disrespect of land owners and the moose. At least they could have finished what they started, and dispatched the bull before the cowards took off !!
  • 1

#9 First Nation HUNTER

First Nation HUNTER

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,068 posts
  • LocationNB

Posted 27 January 2017 - 01:54 PM

BM, I still don't see where from the article you are supporting what you think/say (Native/Non-Native). sorry,
 
-----------------

John, depends on the law in AB id guess,
but if it was unlawful and could be proven, then charges for unlawful discharge of a firearm should/would have been laid.

It does say both RCMP and Fish and Wildlife officers concluded investigations but also didn't lay charges.
Outside of the unauthorized possession of a firearm.. which could be something a simple as an expired PAL (or even no PAL on his person).

The CO's were at the scene, and it says nothing in the article from them about unlawful discharge anywhere (distance or otherwise), so I'm assuming the shots were within the legal boundaries of AB regulations
 
It doesn't seem anyone was in violation regarding the law under the regulations.
 
There was only one person (unauthorized possession of a firearm) who was doing anything illegal, and that charge doesn't seem to be hunting related.
The other individuals were hunting "legally" in all respects under law...(or so I gather).

If you ask me, anyone that turns this into an issue regarding Natives, is doing so by their own accord .. cause if you ask me it clearly isn't.
  • 0
"If they run, they'll just die tired"

browning_sig-exp_zpsa59d45fb.png

- Browning BLR PG, .300wsm
- Savage Model 111, .270win
- Savage Model 11, .243
- My trusty 1958 Winchester model 12, 12ga
- Limbsaver dz30, Easton FMJ and a muzzy

#10 First Nation HUNTER

First Nation HUNTER

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,068 posts
  • LocationNB

Posted 27 January 2017 - 02:49 PM

http://www.ctvnews.c...tions-1.1028124

http://globalnews.ca...ls-left-to-rot/
  • 0
"If they run, they'll just die tired"

browning_sig-exp_zpsa59d45fb.png

- Browning BLR PG, .300wsm
- Savage Model 111, .270win
- Savage Model 11, .243
- My trusty 1958 Winchester model 12, 12ga
- Limbsaver dz30, Easton FMJ and a muzzy

#11 KC1751

KC1751

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts

Posted 27 January 2017 - 05:42 PM

too bad the homeowner backed down

they did not have permission

no permission in Alberta is an expensive lesson

4 moose is a lot of moose meat

driving in the field is trespass in it self; leaving an animal to suffer is another charge

I wonder if the landowner was afraid


  • 0

#12 Bob LeBlanc

Bob LeBlanc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,300 posts
  • LocationZone 106

Posted 27 January 2017 - 06:37 PM

...
It doesn't seem anyone was in violation regarding the law under the regulations.
 
There was only one person (unauthorized possession of a firearm) who was doing anything illegal, and that charge doesn't seem to be hunting related.
The other individuals were hunting "legally" in all respects under law...(or so I gather).

If you ask me, anyone that turns this into an issue regarding Natives, is doing so by their own accord .. cause if you ask me it clearly isn't.

 

Well...The way I read it...They KNEW they were in the wrong. ;)

That's why they high-tailed it out of there :huh: ...having already killed 3 moose and allowing one to lay suffering. :angry:

The only person to get charged with anything...was the one who returned to the scene of the crime ;) ...(unlawful possession of a firearm). :rolleyes: Chances are, he was just seeing if they had got away with it when he got dinged. 

 

I've heard your argument toooooo many times...

You'll never convince me that 2 wrongs makes it right.

 

Respect the animal first...and respect the landowner, as well.

...and, BLATANTLY, they did neither. <_<


  • 0
Shoot straight...Shoot honest...Shoot every coyote you see.

#13 nomad

nomad

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • LocationLingan

Posted 27 January 2017 - 06:46 PM

I honestly can't see how anyone can put a positive spin on this incident. For Christ sake , how does one get charged with unauthorized use of a firearm and still get to keep the kill(s)? That fact that the owners headlights scared them away tells me it may have been after dusk. Maybe, maybe not? Nobody runs when they've done no wrong imo. So, is the theme here " anything goes "as long as you have a status card?
  • 0

#14 First Nation HUNTER

First Nation HUNTER

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,068 posts
  • LocationNB

Posted 27 January 2017 - 08:14 PM

I am still waiting for someone to show me what was illegal in the article and how it would differ if the parties in question were white....(if possible, without just adding your own spin on it)... If you have more info than the article shows, let us know and back up your statements..thats all I ask..
 
Respect the animal or landowner that isn't A NATIVE issue out there or anywhere...
This article isn't or shouldn't be seen or brought up as a Native issue either.
 
For the record, Im not try to convince anyone of anything. Im just stating what i see as fact from the article in question..
This wasn't or isn't Because they were Native.. Thats my point...Its not a Native issue.. (to keep it simple for you.) , but some of you fellas seem to always try to put the negative spin when anything has any Natives involved, on whatever and whenever you see an oppurtunity..

Surely I am not the only one that can see that..
its just to bad, but not unexpected.. :(

And nomad..Its has nothing to do with anyone having a status card either.. Nor does having one mean that anyting goes ..(BTW, yes I have my card and know this firsthand..)

If you really want my opionion on this.
If you read the story above and all you get from it is that this is a Native problem...and then begin you commentaries based on that....
If thats the way you perceive the article in question, then unfortuanatly it looks to me as you being the one or ones that really have the issue.
  • 0
"If they run, they'll just die tired"

browning_sig-exp_zpsa59d45fb.png

- Browning BLR PG, .300wsm
- Savage Model 111, .270win
- Savage Model 11, .243
- My trusty 1958 Winchester model 12, 12ga
- Limbsaver dz30, Easton FMJ and a muzzy

#15 gary

gary

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,383 posts
  • Locationhants county

Posted 27 January 2017 - 08:45 PM


more media coverage

http://www.huffingto...n_14422208.html


according to google search - sunset in Bonnyville, AB on Monday was 4:44pm.


From the 2016 Alberta general hunt regs:

6.abandon, destroy or allow the edible meat of any game bird or big game animal (except cougar or bear), to become unfit for human consumption.

7. have a loaded firearm (live ammunition in breech, chamber or magazine) in or on, or discharge a weapon from •a boat unless the boat is propelled by muscular power or is at anchor and the person is hunting, or
•any kind of aircraft or vehicle whether it is moving or stationary.
Note: Ammunition may be carried in a magazine that is not attached to the firearm. Click here for contact information regarding federal firearms legislation.

8.discharge a weapon within 183 m (200 yards) or cause a projectile from a weapon to pass within 183 m (200 yards) of any occupied building. Owners, occupants, or persons authorized by the owner or occupant are excepted, subject to local bylaws.

9.discharge a firearm from or cause a projectile from a firearm to pass along or across:
a) a provincial highway (this designation applies to all former primary and secondary highways),
a road that is paved, oiled, graded or regularly maintained, unless
- the road is held under any active disposition under the Public Lands Act or under an order under the Surface Rights Act, or
- the person is hunting game birds with a shotgun under the authority of a licence.
Note: if there is no identifiable ditch or fence to mark the outside edge of the roadway, then the roadway extends 20 feet from the edge of the traveled portion.


  • 0

#16 coxheathhills

coxheathhills

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Locationcoxheath

Posted 27 January 2017 - 10:17 PM

trespassing on private property -illegal    unauthorized possession of a firearm-illegal  unauthorized possession of ammunition-illegal  shooting an animal and leaving it behind to suffer -illegal  


  • 0

#17 First Nation HUNTER

First Nation HUNTER

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,068 posts
  • LocationNB

Posted 27 January 2017 - 10:24 PM

yep..trespassing (but landowner did not want to lay any charges),, so illegal, yes, but unenforcable, so no charges .... next, the firearm infraction..(charges pending)
That stuffs all in the article.
But that doesnt matter whether you are Native, White or whatever...thats my point.

If it was a non-native tresspassing and hunting and the land owner didn't press the matter with authorities.. No charges could be laid.
If a non-native harvested the game and in doing so "discharged a weapon, and was outside of the legal 183 m (200 yards)", - There would be no charges.
(and I'm sure if they shot an animal within the guidelines of the regulations, they would be also allowed to keep the animal")
 
So to recap...even though Natives were involved, If landowner wanted to pursue, authorities would have laid the charges in that matter. (same as if they were white, so no difference there)
Firearm infraction, even though Native,charges pending/laid (same as if they were white, so no difference there)
 
Pretty simple logic if you ask me...
  • 0
"If they run, they'll just die tired"

browning_sig-exp_zpsa59d45fb.png

- Browning BLR PG, .300wsm
- Savage Model 111, .270win
- Savage Model 11, .243
- My trusty 1958 Winchester model 12, 12ga
- Limbsaver dz30, Easton FMJ and a muzzy

#18 coxheathhills

coxheathhills

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Locationcoxheath

Posted 27 January 2017 - 10:43 PM

i am still waiting for someone to show me what  was illegal in the article , isnt that what you posted,


  • 0

#19 coxheathhills

coxheathhills

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Locationcoxheath

Posted 27 January 2017 - 10:48 PM

those four charges for some would get a hefty fine and jail time


  • 0

#20 First Nation HUNTER

First Nation HUNTER

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,068 posts
  • LocationNB

Posted 27 January 2017 - 10:48 PM

"I am still waiting for someone to show me what was illegal in the article and how it would differ if the parties in question were white"
Sorry, let me clarify, I meant in the context of what would be illegal for white but not a Native...
 
Sure jail or fine...If charges were laid...
but like i said...in the tresspass for example.. "If it was a non-native tresspassing and hunting and the land owner didn't press the matter with authorities.. No charges would/could be laid."

So no jail time for that regardless of who you are.

 

As for the firearm, charges are pending. so if found guilty. jail, fine or both.. (regardless of who you are)

 

So I don't see how or why anyone could argue over that? Native or not..


  • 0
"If they run, they'll just die tired"

browning_sig-exp_zpsa59d45fb.png

- Browning BLR PG, .300wsm
- Savage Model 111, .270win
- Savage Model 11, .243
- My trusty 1958 Winchester model 12, 12ga
- Limbsaver dz30, Easton FMJ and a muzzy




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users