Clear Full Forecast

What's Good For The Goose - Not So Good For The Gander

By Ben Meisner

Friday, January 22, 2010 03:45 AM

Just over a week ago, a group of snowmobilers went to the Bear Lake area with the intention of spending the day riding their machines with their children.

What they got was anything but.

While unloading the machines, a Conservation Officer showed up asking about some wolf and coyote shootings in the area. The members of the group pointed out they were not hunting.

A few minutes later the officer (identified only as officer “Mike”) along with another officer, came back to where the group was getting ready and informed the group that in his opinion the snow machines the young people were riding were too large for their own safety.  The adults  argued that the young people had extensive riding skills. At this point, according to one of the group, Conservation Officer Mike, informed them that he would not allow the young boys to ride off and if they did, he would have the father’s truck and trailer impounded for non compliance.

That, according to the snowmobilers,  made the riders very angry given that there are no laws governing the age someone can ride a snow machine in BC.

Conservation officer Mike is alleged to have  taken it one step further by ordering one of the group to produce his driver’s license saying he would be receiving a ticket for allowing the children to ride a snowmobile too large for their own safety.

Officer Mike by this time had told the group that he had powers as a peace officer, so  rather than get into a further argument the snowmobilers  say they loaded their machines and headed for home.

Now Officer Mike indeed has the same powers as a peace officer, he however should be aware that he administers the law; he does not make up that law.  That falls under the jurisdiction of the Legislature of the Province of BC. Surely with two officers in attendance one would have the presence of mind  to ask  someone( I took me less than 2 minutes to determine there is no law governing the riding of sleds by kids) to find out what the law really was, rather than make up the law as he went along.

An apology has been issued to some members of the group, and so it should have.

It is rather strange however that the Ministry of the Environment which routinely put up a list of those people who have either committed an error or broken the law, failed to do the same when it applied to them.

We at 0-250 asked for a comment on how such a major screw up could have occurred,  but to the time of this writing there has been no reply. That silence   speaks volumes.

I'm Meisner,  and that's one man's opinion


Previous Story - Next Story

Email Email | Print Print | Share on Facebook Facebook | Tweet! Twitter | Digg Digg | Del.icio.us Del.icio.us

Posted on Friday, January 22, 2010 03:45 AM in Views by Ben Meisner

Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

Comment Posted by: Stompin Tom on January 22 2010 5:55 AM
Huhh, he must think he is an NHL ref.
Comment Posted by: Eagleone on January 22 2010 6:47 AM
When they make up the law on the road side they should be severely punished. Thats not a small issue, especially when they are infringing on the rights of a fellow citizen.
Comment Posted by: northman on January 22 2010 7:34 AM
If this is true its a classic case of a rookie bonehead fresh out of univierstiy with a new badge and a bit of authority goof up.. I work with alot of natural resouce enforcement officers and this is a very rare case..Besides conservation officers dont have authority under the MVA..So they have no authority over the snowmobilers unless they were being detrimental to the environment and wildlife.. The only way the truck could have been impounded is if they had an illegal poached animal. Something does sound really funny coming from both sides of the story here.. I think it kind of got inflated both ways..If you run into this problem it is your civil right to ask for the guys badge number and identification(they have to show you if you ask) and make sure he tells you exactly what legislation and regulations you are being charged under. An exprinced officer should know exaclty what they are charging you under and not make it as they see fit.
Comment Posted by: MrPG on January 22 2010 8:19 AM
The nerve of that Conservation Officer, expressing concerns about that kid's safety!
Comment Posted by: RUEZ on January 22 2010 9:01 AM
Wow really MrPG? That's what you got out of that story? So the whole abusing your power and making up arbitrary rules as you go just flew right over your head? Don't worry, someone else will make sure your rights are protected even if you won't.
Comment Posted by: IMO on January 22 2010 9:05 AM
LOL Good one Ruez!! Ever notice how this poster always sides with government? Always.
Comment Posted by: Howrd_B_Stern on January 22 2010 9:13 AM
You know as someone who always has to know their rights in dealing with peace officers, my advice to any of you is this. You have every right to ask questions yourself, so ask Officer ________. Keep a pen and paper handy, and if you have one a video camera and inform Officer _____ that you are recording him (all legal).

1) Sir, what is your name, your badge number, and your rank?

2) Can you specify what law/rule/code that I am in contravention of?

3) Are you aware Sir, that this is an area commonly used by _________?

4) Why are you impounding my ______?

The key thing is to remain calm through the whole thing. These jokers love nothing better than to see a riled up citizen. It gives them an excuse to escalate their attack on you in the name of public safety.

Good luck
Comment Posted by: Outwest on January 22 2010 9:25 AM
I think 2 Ghost from the GESTAPO where visiting Bear Lake.
Comment Posted by: Andyfreeze on January 22 2010 9:30 AM
MrPG...I think you are completely missing the point here!
What would you say if it happened to you?
The other point is that an apology has been issued.
Obviously the Conservation officer was in the wrong and should not be defended!
Comment Posted by: MrPG on January 22 2010 9:31 AM
I don't know about taking sides, but as the story said, the officer clearly had no people skills and apologized for it -- that seems to be what the story is about.

The whole thing about the kid's safety is glossed over and minimized, and I would fully expect that from the haters on this site.

Just like someone said, there's always three sides to the story; your side, my side and the truth.
Comment Posted by: MrPG on January 22 2010 9:43 AM
And someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the bigger sleds have little signs on them saying that you must be 16 years old to ride? I know that's the case for ATV's. It's all speculation I know, but those kids of details aren't in the story.
Comment Posted by: MrPG on January 22 2010 9:43 AM
kids=kinds.
Comment Posted by: viper700 on January 22 2010 9:55 AM
Actually MrPG there isn't anything on the bigger sleds. Trust me, as we were sitting there waiting to see if the CO was going to let us go I was reading all the stuff on mine. After we returned home for the day there were many contacts to the ATV/snowmobile dealers checking on this, just in case there was something that we were not aware of. Even on the ATV's where is has the no riders under 16, that is a manufacturers suggestion, not a law, we have also looked into that.
Comment Posted by: Outwest on January 22 2010 10:08 AM
Maybe this will shed some light into there way of thinking, Years ago one of them knocked on our Door and ask us to bring our Dog inside, its barking is scaring the Moose down on the Lake (Dog was tied up in Front of the Door) My Wife told them the Dog will stay outside and it is tied up and go find something better to do, he left.
Comment Posted by: MrPG on January 22 2010 10:13 AM
"Even on the ATV's where is has the no riders under 16, that is a manufacturers suggestion, not a law, we have also looked into that."

It may not be a 'law', but there is a reason that those warnings are on those machines. Because they can be downright dangerous, especially if you're not big enough to handle them.
Comment Posted by: MrPG on January 22 2010 10:14 AM
"My Wife told them the Dog will stay outside and it is tied up and go find something better to do, he left."

What a wonderful life your dog must have. Tied up and barking. Your neighbours must love you.
Comment Posted by: viper700 on January 22 2010 10:25 AM
I completely agree that they can be dangerous, that is not my point. My point is that there is no actual law governing it and that the CO was abusing his authority.
Comment Posted by: tuatkaan on January 22 2010 10:32 AM
Years back some UNBC students were fishing
at the old Cameron Bridge East (downstream)
of it. Two conservation officer came (one of them a female was just a "trainie" and
give $140.00 fine to each person, whom were fishing with worm. They had fishing
licences, but used worm as bate.
By the way, that was legal by the regulations at that time, but by the
officer it was not. When we helped the
foreign students to provide a printout
of the regulations, they went to the
office at Ospika-Massey and represented
it.
They (the persons in the office) took
the issued tickets back from them, saying
it was a mistake. No apology of any kind
whatsoever.
This was just one of the stories we
personaly heard from victims about conservation officer(s) beign over the line.
Comment Posted by: MrPG on January 22 2010 11:10 AM
It is very surprising that there is no law about age and snowmobiles, considering all the other laws that are on the books and how dangerous those machines can be.

There are probably lots of things that aren't 'against the law' per se, but are still unsafe. What right does a peace officer have to speak up about the children's safety if he sees something that might be unsafe? How would he have felt if he had said nothing and one of those kids got seriously injured or worse?

Again, there is no dispute that the guy was a jerk. Thanks viper for being rational in this discussion, unlike many in this thread.
Comment Posted by: kendoo on January 22 2010 11:19 AM
3 years ago when marked fuel was illeagle in atv's a CO stopped us on a hunting trip ( we were all geared up for hunting) & climbed on to trailer & checked both atv's for marked fuel. no asking for license, checking loaded guns nothing just looking for marked fuel. REAL conservation work, He lost a lot of respect that day, idiot wannabee's
Comment Posted by: Loki on January 22 2010 11:23 AM
Motor Vehicle (All Terrain) Act, Chapter 319 (MVAT)
No provincial legislation for recreational use of an All-Terrain Vehicle.
(MVAT): ATVs for farming or industrial use must be registered. Children under 16 cannot register an ATV.
Comment Posted by: kendoo on January 22 2010 11:23 AM
Oh marked fuel is legal now in atv's & snowmobiles CO's may try to snow job you don't buy it.
Comment Posted by: seamutt on January 22 2010 11:23 AM
Mr.PG did you miss this in the above "The adults argued that the young people had extensive riding skills." or are you a cherrypicker.

I guess we better get all the "kids" off farm machinery.

The age 16 rule only applies to watercraft.

How come CO's look like a military unit? Very good for a public image, must be some ego thing.
Comment Posted by: MrPG on January 22 2010 11:32 AM
Seamutt, my old friend. Taking a break from your usual 'climategate' posts I see.

Had extensive riding skills? Did they take an approved course? How many years of experience did they have?

So maybe it's ok that a 12 year old can get on and ride a 750cc machine because the parent deems that the child has 'extensive riding skills'. It still doesn't mean the situation is safe. I don't know how old the kids were in this case or what kind of machine they were riding, just making a point.
Comment Posted by: Loki on January 22 2010 12:00 PM
In this rare occasion, I happen to agree 100% with MrPG. Thanks for quoting me.

1. there is no law in bc regarding the age of an atv rider or even a helmet
2. The C/O are responsible for activities that happen in the wilderness or that could impact wildlife
3. It just happens to include safety enforcement where they deem an unsafe activity is taking place
4. they are dressed in paramilitary garb because they have to deal with people possessing guns that may be participating in an illegal act
5. Some c/o feel that they are also law enforcement when other law agents are not involved/available/present. Whether that is the mandate or not is another issue. It would be nice to hear a definitive answer to that.
Comment Posted by: seamutt on January 22 2010 1:59 PM
Loki so you automatically relate snowmobiles with wildlife. I believe you have no experience with either. Are they qualified to deem that these people are particpating in an unsafe act. Have they taken any courses. The people harassed seem to be much more qualified than the CO.

"Some c/o feel that they are also law enforcement when other law agents are not involved/available/present. Whether that is the mandate or not is another issue. It would be nice to hear a definitive answer to that." I believe this CO was totaly ignorant in this whole situation and was acting totaly beyond his mandate. I suppose his uniform and gun feeds his ego.

Gus are you happy paying into the Co2 scam?
Comment Posted by: BCRacer on January 22 2010 2:04 PM
and maybe there is a lot more to the story...this is only one side...
so facts could well have been stretched a bit...maybe not, but maybe....lets draw a bead on the forhead of the conservation office once we have heard his side...maybe it was an imposter too????
Comment Posted by: Loki on January 22 2010 2:33 PM
I do not relate sleds to wildlife. I relate sleds to wilderness which is the home of the wildlife.

If someone drove a sled through your living room or just your yard, I am sure it would have an impact on your quality of life.

In no way did I suggest the c/o was in the right, only that he may feel that it was his duty. I also indicated that I do not know for sure the extent of their authority or mandate and did ask for someone to clarify.

Give any person a gun and their ego will quickly grow bigger than their britches.
Comment Posted by: gitterdun on January 22 2010 3:07 PM
For anyone that has actually looked at the ATVs that are recommended for use by kids under 16 they are so small that no averaged size kid over the age of 8 could possibly ride. At 12 my nephew was 165lbs and 5'8". You don't overload a tiny ATV with a kid that size. He had a full size 350 that they adjusted the throttle cable on to restrict speed.

It doesn't say in the article but many people restrict the throttle on larger sleds to make it safer for kids. Did the CO even ask if this was done?

Maybe this CO ought to head out to the ski hill and check out how many kids come flying down on snowboards without helmets!
Comment Posted by: billm on January 22 2010 3:22 PM
Let’s see, there is no law in BC governing the age limit on riding a snow machine. The conservation officer says there is. He threatens the family with a ticket and seizure of their vehicle. Now who’s wrong?
If the province feels there should be a law governing age to ride a snow mobile, then the game warden should be lobbying the government to change the act. He does not make up the laws in BC. In the meantime, he or no other game warden in BC has the right to suggest they can issue a ticket for a law that doesn’t exist. Plain and simple, kindly stick to the facts -MRPG .
As for the apologies, apparently it was a phone call, how about the courage to stand in front of the young riders and say; I got it wrong, I’m sorry.
Comment Posted by: MrPG on January 22 2010 3:29 PM
Ah yes, the facts. Did you read the story?

From the story: "...the officer (identified only as officer “Mike”) along with another officer, came back to where the group was getting ready and informed the group that in his opinion the snow machines the young people were riding were too large for their own safety. "

Where in there does it day that the CO said distinctly that there was a 'law' restricting the age of kids riding sleds?

We're back to the whole idea of what a peace officer's role is with respect to speaking up when he or she sees something that might not be safe. Apparently, they are within their right to do so, and take action when they believe something unsafe is about to take place.

----

"As for the apologies, apparently it was a phone call, how about the courage to stand in front of the young riders and say; I got it wrong, I’m sorry. "

Oh get over yourself. The guy was a jerk, he said he was sorry. Who cares whether he did it over the phone or in person.
Comment Posted by: metalman on January 22 2010 3:33 PM
No doubt the C.O. folks occasionally have a difficult job who does'nt? They, like most, deserve some respect. Do I respect them, or other officers more than 'regular folks' just because they are officers? NO. I have run into C.O's who were friendly and helpful, while remaining professional in their capacity as an agent of the Crown, and some who were the opposite.
Just like normal people, officers of the law come in all sizes and types.
It is too bad that the clown in question ruined the day for the sledders.
metalman.
Comment Posted by: Harbinger on January 22 2010 5:33 PM
It seems that if a no-fly list exists at our airports,then I see no reason why the COs can't have a "no- skidooing list". "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you".
Comment Posted by: ronburke on January 22 2010 5:40 PM
From reading Mrpg’s posts on this issue, I fear that the lights are on but no one is home.
While there are many laws dealing with children in the province, there is not a single law dealing with an age restriction for young people riding snow machines.
The provincial legislation dealing with Game wardens (CO’s) does not grant them authority to raise children in the manner they deem fit, that responsibility remains with the parents.
In this case, instead of going back to their truck and checking to see if the group of people getting ready to ride their snow machines were right in saying that there was no age restriction , they set about to write their own laws.
If a father feels that his child is capable of riding a snow machine in the province of BC, there is no age restriction.
The matter is black and white, did the game wardens threaten to write a ticket for an underage person riding a snow machine, for a non existent, law yes or no.
Further when they discovered their mistake did they offer an apology to all involved.
Comment Posted by: seamutt on January 22 2010 6:15 PM
Loki says "I do not relate sleds to wildlife. I relate sleds to wilderness which is the home of the wildlife."
What about ATV's, cars, trains, towns, cities, aircraft, hikers etc. are these not all in wilderness or what was wilderness.
Comment Posted by: acrider54 on January 22 2010 6:16 PM
A totaly policed province B.C. is these days. Papers please! you can't do anything without a cop or one of these boneheads that think thay have authority to do what ever they please telling you what you can and cannot do.

One of these idiots five kilometrs down the Parsnip road in the spring turned on his blue and red flashers which was not needed as there was only room for one vehile at a time, I was stopping anyway but he had to turn the big lights on to show his authority. Asked me what I was doing there, I told him I was working. Then I got the third degree, like I shouldn't have been in the bush at all without his permission. A@@H@@e

I am a qualifeid snowmobile trainer with the BCSF and as far as I know there is no law regarding age to machine size, it is recommended that the rider be trained beforehand. This Mike guy is totaly out to lunch and it's the "power of authority" they think they have to harass anyone for anything.

I'm getting sick of this police state crap, road blocks for garbage you name it.

If that guy had of started that BS with me, we'd be going to court. Waste of time and money, for the idiot to even be employed, he shouldn't be there in the first place, has no idea what he's taliking about. Jeeze I'm pissed!!!!!!! Sorry!
Comment Posted by: farmboy on January 22 2010 6:24 PM
Mr Pg can you not read what was written.

Conservation Officer Mike informed them that he would not allow the young boys to ride off and if they did, he would have the father’s truck and trailer impounded for non compliance.

And later;
Conservation officer Mike is alleged to have taken it one step further by ordering one of the group to produce his drivers license saying he would be receiving a ticket for allowing the children to ride a snowmobile to large for their own safety.

Bet you that ticket was never written.


Now I suppose Mr PG you believe that the Pritchard video of the tazering of Robert Dziekanski does not give an accurate picture of what went on.
Comment Posted by: Quaddin on January 22 2010 6:27 PM
Mr PG. I think you missing the whole point.
Officer Mike had no jurisdiction over those folks out for a day of sledding. They we not breaking any laws and he had no right to suggest that the sleds we too big for the kids. He is not the parent. The parents have that responsibility. I have owned sleds in the past and also took my kids sledding. My son at age 13 rode a 700 Polaris. Lots of power. Yes But he knew how to handle the sled and if he abused it he would not have been riding it. He also rode motocross between the ages of 12 - 18 and was in control of motorbikes which would regularly jump in excess of 60 - 100 feet. He learned very young how to ride and as well how to be safe. He learned in a very controlled environment with good professionals showing him along the way. He turned out to be a very good rider. So at age 13 he was probably a better rider that a lot of adults I have seen.

My point is the snowmobilers we breaking no laws. They said their kids knew how to ride and control the sleds and they we also being supervised.

I think Officer Mike should have made a personal apology to the parents and the young riders. He could have said something like he was sorry that he was misinformed and that he overstepped his jurisdiction in the process of ruining there day.

Stick to catching poachers Officer Mike.
Comment Posted by: acrider54 on January 22 2010 6:34 PM
MrPG give you head a shake, you make no sence at all with your comments on this matter.
Comment Posted by: Quaddin on January 22 2010 7:05 PM
Mr PG. I think you missing the whole point.
Officer Mike had no jurisdiction over those folks out for a day of sledding. They we not breaking any laws and he had no right to suggest that the sleds we too big for the kids. He is not the parent. The parents have that responsibility. I have owned sleds in the past and also took my kids sledding. My son at age 13 rode a 700 Polaris. Lots of power. Yes But he knew how to handle the sled and if he abused it he would not have been riding it. He also rode motocross between the ages of 12 - 18 and was in control of motorbikes which would regularly jump in excess of 60 - 100 feet. He learned very young how to ride and as well how to be safe. He learned in a very controlled environment with good professionals showing him along the way. He turned out to be a very good rider. So at age 13 he was probably a better rider that a lot of adults I have seen.

My point is the snowmobilers we breaking no laws. They said their kids knew how to ride and control the sleds and they we also being supervised.

I think Officer Mike should have made a personal apology to the parents and the young riders. He could have said something like he was sorry that he was misinformed and that he overstepped his jurisdiction in the process of ruining there day.

Stick to catching poachers Officer Mike.
Comment Posted by: acrider54 on January 22 2010 7:25 PM
Mispelled sense
Comment Posted by: acrider54 on January 22 2010 7:59 PM
Thank christ Mike doesn't have a taser, wait a minute he does have a gun, run for your lives!
Comment Posted by: Mercenary on January 22 2010 8:27 PM
I don't know what bug was up this officers azz this day but clearly he stepped over the boundaries. Its nice that we can actually have these kinds of discussions about our LEO's and not worry about repercussions.

However....there is no way in hell I would ever let any child ride my 600 sled regardless of their so called skill level. I can't understand these parents who let their kids ride these big sleds and bikes and figure their kid has the MATURITY to handle it properly. Regardless if there is a law or not a parent has to be more responsible.

No where in the article is the power of the machines mentioned. While I understand that how powerful the machines were really had no bearing on the article if we knew how powerful they were we might begin to see 'Officer Mike's' side of the story.
Comment Posted by: Quaddin on January 23 2010 7:30 AM
" However....there is no way in hell I would ever let any child ride my 600 sled regardless of their so called skill level. I can't understand these parents who let their kids ride these big sleds and bikes and figure their kid has the MATURITY to handle it properly."

I think it would have to depend on the circumstances Mercenary. Most kids that get involved in motorsport racing do so at a very young age. They start out on very small bikes, quad, or sleds for that matter and learn to ride and handle the machines with a lot of supervision. They work their way up to bigger machines with more power as they progress and get physically bigger. Of course there is always the exceptions to this and there is always the idiot parents. As for the power of the machines most sleds in that size range all weigh about the same and are the same size and the only difference is the engine size. This is the same for motocross bikes as well.

Our kids were never allowed to ride alone unsupervised. Not even on our property. There was always someone around to keep them in check and make sure they did not overstep their limits. Was their a risk of injury. Yes it was always there. But there is also risk in hockey, football, skiing or any other type of aggressive sport.

Now I do not know the skill of the kids or the parents in this particular situation but I think we have to let the parents be parents. If they break the law that is another matter. But as we know they broke no laws. I would assume from the article that the kids were riding with adults and the adults can decide if the kids are not riding properly or pushing the limits to much with the machines. But the good thing Mercenary is those kids are not out busting into your carport or home stealing your possessions. They are out snowmobiling with their parents and enjoying the out doors and maybe learning a few things along the way.
Comment Posted by: taxinapothole on January 24 2010 6:13 AM
God I would like to know who MrPG is! I know I am sick of his numerous comments on every article. I agree with IMO, MrPG always seems to side with Government.

Come clean for us MrPG, who are you???

As for CO "Mike", he should be fired immediately! We need this moron disarmed!