fisherman shooting

[JohnF]

From the posted news article;

 

"When they turned around and started to run away, he shot them both in the back with birdshot."

 

This guy wasn't defending anybody or anything. This will only give more fuel to the anti-gun crowd and no responsible gun owners should be defending him.

 

Just my $.02 worth. (However...there is always another side to every story and I might still change my mind)

 

Cynic that I am, I generally assume that the news story includes only the facts that make the story exciting. Most often it seems to only include that which makes the story interesting. Many details tend to take away from the drama of it all.

 

JF

[forrest]

If the guy has cash (he does have a stocked pond!) an intelligent way to have dealt with this:

 

1) post the no fishing/contact sign in a way that it could not easily be messed with

2) put up some video cameras

3) video tape trespassing and/or theft of fish

4) call cops and have offenders charged or sign a peace bond

 

Certainly easier said than done

Certainly easier done than getting hauled into court on weapons and battery charges.

 

 

forrest

[Carp]

If this property has been trespassed on before (by the sounds of it, numerous times by various anglers),

I find it hard to believe the owner didn't have the property posted.

There's only so many times a person can stand hearing the same excuses.

"Didn't see any signs."

"Thought it was public land."

Oooops! Sorry.

 

If the property was posted, which I would tend to believe it was, the signs

were probably torn down by poachers/trespassers to support their feeble excuses.

 

Although I don't agree with shooting the trespassers, the owner doesn't know how

mentally stable these people are. It would be unwise to confront someone without

a viable means of defense. Seems like laws here in Canada protect criminals more than victims.

 

This case should serve as a warning those who trespass & steal.

 

The owner should have stayed out of sight any called police immediately.

The pair could have been charged with theft/poaching and trespassing.

That alone would probably be enough to keep them from visiting the pond again.

[wacky tambaqui]

So...

 

Here we have something about somebody going into someone else's private pond which isn't right to begin with but OTOH was the property clealy fenced and signed as being private land?

 

Was the place all wide open and looking like a free-for-all or were there blatant visual indications such as fences and signs? If it was visually obvious that the property is private-owned, then in this case I side with the property owner. That being said, I too would pack some rock salt loads.

 

In another incident some years ago I was looking for a way into a rapids on the Wanapitei River and found what looked like an access point. There was a widening in the road and tire marks that suggested other anglers and berry pickers were parking there. There were no signs, fences, or any visual indication the land was off-limits to the public. Otherwise I would have not ventured there.

 

As I took my tackle out of the trunk, I was startled with loud growling noises. I turned and there were Cujo and Chopper backing me up against the car, baring their fangs. I've been face to face with every four-legged Northern Ontario critter you could name except the cougar and never felt afraid or saw any need to pack pepper spray until that encounter with those two vicious dogs.

 

Then the land owner came around with an attitude to match that of his psycho mutts. To make a long story short I cut the argument short by retorting:

"Sir, I did not mean to intrude on you like this. I didn't know this was your place."

 

On those words, the land owner just blanched as white as a bed sheet from head to toe and completely changed his tune from a condescending one to a convivial one and even extended a handshake. To this day I regret having accepted such a truce with Mr. Psycho Mutts. But then too, I was all startled, surprised, shaken, and not thinking clearly anyway.

 

In Ontario, any open countryside is a free-for-all unless clearly marked and signed as being private-owned. I speak from my many years of experience working in legal land surveys.

[POLLIWOGG]

I'm sorry I lumped all the cops together. Cops HERE will NOT come to a trespass complaint unless you have the bad guys or plate #'s and I don't blame them because they can't do anything after their long gone anyway.

 

How do you pull someone over if you don't chase them? no wonder you got so many speeders up there. The cops here will chase you and pull you over for speeding, seat belts, and all kinds of stuff. Maybe your definition of "chase" is a little different than mine.

 

In any case stop beating your head on the wall, it aint worth it.

[fishing n autograph]

I'm sorry I lumped all the cops together. Cops HERE will NOT come to a trespass complaint unless you have the bad guys or plate #'s and I don't blame them because they can't do anything after their long gone anyway.

 

How do you pull someone over if you don't chase them? no wonder you got so many speeders up there. The cops here will chase you and pull you over for speeding, seat belts, and all kinds of stuff. Maybe your definition of "chase" is a little different than mine.

 

In any case stop beating your head on the wall, it aint worth it.

 

our idea of chase is a little different. Chase for me means High Speed Pursuit. Of course you have to speed up from a parked position to stop someone who goes speeding past you.

[outdoorguy61]

I feel sorry for the landowner and have no pity for anyone trespassing. My own belief has it, that one still has the right to protect ones property. Whatever this gentleman is or is not like, trespassing is trespassing.... I hope they learned their lesson well. Failing that, perhaps we should just allow a free for all.

 

outdoorguy61

[Baldy]

Funny, I understood that if you want to access private property either to hunt or fish you must get permission from the landowner.

 

This is excerpts from the MNR website regarding access to private property:

 

 

"When it comes to crossing private lands to access fishing opportunities the property occupier has the first and last word about who can enter the property. It is up to the occupier to allow or restrict entry onto their property or to allow or restrict the activities that occur on that property.

 

In general terms anyone may enter onto private property to do anything which is lawful without occupier permission unless the entrant has been given notice that entry is prohibited. So, a privately owned bush lot is available to the general public until the occupier notifies people otherwise. The occupier has a number of options when it comes to letting people know that entry is prohibited or that activities are restricted.

 

Another common method of notice is coloured markings. You will often see red or yellow dots painted on trees or fence posts on a property boundary. A red coloured marker indicates that the occupier is restricting all access; entry is prohibited.

 

There is a long list of other things which are forms of notice and must be considered the occupiers intention to restrict entry on property. This list includes:

 

* Maintained fences and gates;

* Land under cultivation;

* Orchards;

* Planted trees under 2 metres in height; and

* Established lawns and gardens

 

When it comes to signs, coloured markings and fences (gates) the occupier is only required to place them at the normal access point to the property. Generally that will be a laneway, private roadway or trail. There might only be one sign prohibiting entry on a very large, undeveloped woodlot for example. It is the responsibility of the entrant to determine whether or not the occupier intends to restrict access to the property and where the property boundaries are; the occupier is not responsible for marking the entire property boundary."

 

Seems pretty clear that these 'fisherman' knew what they were doing. They didn't deserve to be shot at but it could have been worse, could be on the missing persons list. Why take the chance, doing something illegal, when you are unsure of the consequences.

 

Gives us all a bad name!

[Stern Rules]

Tough call on this one. Fishing in someone's pond is inconsiderate. There are millions of other spots to catch fish but to shoot at someone for that is a bit extreme. If it was salt that's a bit different but still harsh. But if they were there many times before they deserved something. It definately does give fishermen a bad rap. Not all of us are rude and inconsiderate. Maybe he should hook up a good electrified fence.

[Musky or Specks]

The no trespassing sign Ive always wanted is a Human Target silouette with a big red circle with a slash through it. Pinned to a tree and peppered with buckshot. If you didnt get the meaning to that youd be pretty thick.

[Sinker]

Maybe a "Tresspassers will be Shot" sign would have saved the landowner some headaches?

 

At least the tresspassers would have a heads up to run a little faster.....lol.

 

Sinker

[brooks999]

-->

The guy charged is a real ass to start. I've been confronted by him while fishing whitemans. He's in court the 17th so maybe i'll go give that pond a try.

 

 

GOLD...that is funny bull right there

[Stoty]

Hmmm..tough call.

 

There is obviously more to the story, so I am not sure which way to lean.

I cant say I blame the guy for being a little peeved at them.

 

But I will tell you...If they were harassing my wife, dumping stuff on my land/into my pond and trespassing on my land....they would he happy with just a little "birdshot" in the butt!

[jackal68]

Well this case is in court now, and the defence is saying that he did not shoot these guys... The guys were hurt running through the bush. They also claim that "shot" from a shotgun cannot penetrate at 70 yrds. I say go stand 70 yards lets try and see. The guys with guns that do this stuff really mess things up for the law abiding dudes.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Caribou

[Burtess]

So did the fishermen get charged with fishing in a closed season??? Last I heard trout season doesn't open for a couple or three more weeks...

 

Burt

Edited April 6, 2010 by Burtess

[Gerritt]

Well this case is in court now, and the defence is saying that he did not shoot these guys... The guys were hurt running through the bush. They also claim that "shot" from a shotgun cannot penetrate at 70 yrds. I say go stand 70 yards lets try and see. The guys with guns that do this stuff really mess things up for the law abiding dudes.

 

 

Yup, I just saw it too... and well, If he never shot these guys, how would he know and have to prove that shot cannot penetrate at 70 yards? I saw the wounds suffered by the two guys fishing... sure looked like puncture wounds to me! I saw no scratches whatso ever... which is what you would expect running through the bush, not obvious "pellet wounds" that penetrated their waders, On the BACK of the waders I might add... meaning they were running away and were no threat.

 

I think the landowner is wrong here, and should receive what ever justice the judge seems him to be deserving of.

 

 

I should add he is now claiming he shot into the air... to scare them. So he admits to discharging a firearm..

Edited April 6, 2010 by Gerritt

[cheaptackle]

Burt- check the original post dates - this all started in 2008.

 

Michael

[The JAY]

Is it bad that I'm looking for Whiteman's Creek on GoogleMaps? No interest in looking for the pond, other than putting a big red X on it, but the creek in a nice short drive I think...

[Gerritt]

Burt- check the original post dates - this all started in 2008.

 

Michael

 

 

It was on the news tonight... as they were in court.

[Burtess]

Burt- check the original post dates - this all started in 2008.

 

Michael

 

Aha.... this makes more sense now lol... thanks for the clarification Michael!

 

Burt

[pike n' whities]

When we read of these stories we always tend to side with the writer.

 

BUT, Nowhere does it say about the fact that these two dudes had been messing with Frankie's wife for the past two years nor was there a mention of the 3 empty gallons of methanol found in close proximity of Frankie's prize bass pond. Frankie made the mistake of using a controlled weapon. ie. You can never be charged with pointing a Louisville slugger.

 

I also would have defended my family and property.

 

 

there may be no law in pointing a louisville slugger but there is one against using it. even if it may be to protect your property. our justice system is pretty corrupt. you beat the crap outta some theif in your house and he can charge you... what the heck is that eh? at least down in texas if people dont get off your property with fair warning you can shoot em. here.... less than lethal force. but thats what the unleashed rotties are for eh, haha.

[Gerritt]

Here are the original charges...

 

Six counts of Breach Firearms Regulation

 

Point Firearm

 

Assault

 

Possession of Weapon for Dangerous Purpose

 

Assault with a Weapon

[Big Cliff]

Tresspass on my property with the intent of taking anything that belongs to me, I'll NEVER shoot you in the back, I'll make sure you are facing me when I pull the trigger! Seriously guys don't judge anyone unless you know all the facts and don't ever believe everything you hear in the press.

[Mykester]

Why are some people suggesting he be tried for attempted murder? He was using birdshot. Using that logic, any form of physical contact should be tried as attempted murder.

 

Anyways, the guy over reacted by shooting at them after they fled.

[spinnerbaitking]

Sorry folks but you don't have to sign it, if you don't have permission to be there your trespassing if it's private property, when we were kids we fished for specks were ever we wanted but years ago we started asking for permission & usually got it, don't bother fishing for them any more too many head aches

Richard