3 men caught spotlighting in Tallangatta VIC

[winton]

Media release

Tuesday, 31 July, 2018

Three men are set to face court and have had hunting equipment seized for allegedly committing a number of hunting and firearm offences in Tallangatta near Albury last Saturday.

Game Management Authority (GMA) Chief Executive Officer Graeme Ford said the men were intercepted by GMA Game Officers and Victoria Police targeting illegal spotlighting in the area.

“The three men were stopped during a routine patrol through the Tallangatta pine forest at approximately 8:00pm,” Mr Ford said.

“The officers inspected the vehicle and found a freshly shot Sambar Deer in the back of the ute as well as an unsecured firearm, ammunition and spotlight.”

“People travelling with a firearm in a vehicle between 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise in recognised deer habitat must ensure their firearms and ammunition are stored securely and not readily accessible.”

“Spotlighting deer is only legal under strict provisions where deer are causing problems on private land.”

Mr Ford said the GMA and Victoria Police will continue to work together to target illegal hunting in Victoria.

"Illegal hunting and irresponsible behaviour will not be tolerated. It is dangerous, can put people and wildlife at risk and damages the reputation of hunting," Mr Ford said.

“People caught illegally spotlighting can be fined or prosecuted, have their equipment confiscated and lose their Game and Firearms Licenses."

Rest of article at http://www.gma.vic.gov.au/media-release ... t-victoria

Whilst this is being played by GMA as a positive, I see some disturbing signs but theres definitely a lack of details here. Some questions about our rights come to my mind:

1 - First of all what are the laws for vehicle searchs? Do Police or GMA have a right to search? Do we need to consent?
2 - Does having a deer in the back of a ute and possession of a spotlight constitute a crime? Don't you have to be caught in the middle of spotlighting or did the 3 men put themselves in legal jeopardy by confessing? Article doesn't say they were spotlighting. just caught with game and happen to have a spotlight.
3 - Isn't a rifle in a gun bag, in the back of the cab enough to qualify as secure? I wonder if the three men caught had firearms out of the bag?
4 - What constitutes a "spotlight". Head torch? Handheld lightforce? Is there a need for one even if one does not intend to spotlight for game?

I wouldn't want to be caught with meat after dark cause it takes a while to butcher and haul it back to the ute, only to be made an example of by GMA and the Police.

[Daddybang]

It's pretty obvious they were poaching. I've read on this forum many times that being in possession of a rifle and spotlight in recognized deer habitat after dark is a crime let alone having a fresh killed deer on board. It was around eight at night so it's a couple of hours after dark I think?? (I figure it's the middle of winter)
I'm a fnqlder and I know the rules so really no excuse for locals not to.

[southwest shooter]

Good , throw the book at them .

[winton]

I can see alot of legitimate scenarios where hunters would be driving back late at night. Especially if you make your kill prior to sunset. Especially if you are on your own. Especially if you have to hike back to your ute.

These guys are going thru the justice system. Aint going to be cheap.

[Archie]

Media release

Tuesday, 31 July, 2018

Three men are set to face court and have had hunting equipment seized for allegedly committing a number of hunting and firearm offences in Tallangatta near Albury last Saturday.

Game Management Authority (GMA) Chief Executive Officer Graeme Ford said the men were intercepted by GMA Game Officers and Victoria Police targeting illegal spotlighting in the area.

“The three men were stopped during a routine patrol through the Tallangatta pine forest at approximately 8:00pm,” Mr Ford said.

“The officers inspected the vehicle and found a freshly shot Sambar Deer in the back of the ute as well as an unsecured firearm, ammunition and spotlight.”

“People travelling with a firearm in a vehicle between 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise in recognised deer habitat must ensure their firearms and ammunition are stored securely and not readily accessible.”

“Spotlighting deer is only legal under strict provisions where deer are causing problems on private land.”

Mr Ford said the GMA and Victoria Police will continue to work together to target illegal hunting in Victoria.

"Illegal hunting and irresponsible behaviour will not be tolerated. It is dangerous, can put people and wildlife at risk and damages the reputation of hunting," Mr Ford said.

“People caught illegally spotlighting can be fined or prosecuted, have their equipment confiscated and lose their Game and Firearms Licenses."

Rest of article at http://www.gma.vic.gov.au/media-release ... t-victoria

Whilst this is being played by GMA as a positive, I see some disturbing signs but theres definitely a lack of details here. Some questions about our rights come to my mind:

1 - First of all what are the laws for vehicle searchs? Do Police or GMA have a right to search? Do we need to consent?
2 - Does having a deer in the back of a ute and possession of a spotlight constitute a crime? Don't you have to be caught in the middle of spotlighting or did the 3 men put themselves in legal jeopardy by confessing? Article doesn't say they were spotlighting. just caught with game and happen to have a spotlight.
3 - Isn't a rifle in a gun bag, in the back of a ute enough to qualify as secure? I wonder if the three men caught had firearms out of the bag?
4 - What constitutes a "spotlight". Head torch? Handheld lightforce? Is there a need for one even if one does not intend to spotlight for game?

I wouldn't want to be caught with meat after dark cause it takes a while to butcher and haul it back to the ute, only to be made an example of by GMA and the Police.

So, as to the first point, my understanding is that the police can search your vehicle, in a public place, without a warrant, if they reasonably suspect that you have a firearm. I would guess that little markers such as having a dead deer in the back of your ute in the middle of a forest at 8pm at night would probably tick that box.

As to the second, I am not an expert in Victoria regulations but the link to the regulations factsheet in the article you linked to, says, no you don't. Specifically: "People are not to be in possession of a firearm and spotlight between 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise in recognised deer habitat."

Third, of course a rifle in a gun bag in the back of a ute isn't secure.

Fourth, the regulations factsheet also defines what constitutes a spotlight and makes it perfectly clear that its fine to be in possession of one as long as your rifle is secured, or if you are on foot as long as your rifle is unloaded and the rounds are packed away.

Last, they're clearly bloody poachers who've been spotlighting.

[winton]

I might clear up what I meant by the back of a ute. I should have added it was the back of a dual cab. Not the tray.

Do you have a link to this spotlight definition?

If they're spotlighters, I'm sure the courts will make that judgement and they'll be serious consequences, but it would be good to get more detail.

[Bigjobss]

I am not familiar with the area but it does say they were in pine forest, gone on multiple fronts.

The only scenario i would ever be worried about might be the question of what is the definition of a spotlight, lumens? Watts? I would hate to be caught in the very unlikely scenario of dropping a deer near a track at dusk, hiking back to camp to get the ute and loading a nearly whole deer and getting pulled over and pinged because of my 1000 lumen headlight.
You could probably talk you way out of it but not a great situation to be in, especially if they "catch" you loading the deer.

Also I would assume that they have no authority to conduct a search unless you consent, or at the very least have genuine suspicion that you have commited an offence, like an unsecured firearm or a stag in the passengers seat.

[Archie]

So the GMA definition of a spotlight is on this link:

http://www.gma.vic.gov.au/__data/assets ... rtwork.pdf

And basically, it's any artificial light.

But before everyone goes apeshit about "what about my headtorch/maglite/keyring torch/glowing iphone screen/luminescent watch dial, the GMA are a bunch of fascists and this country is going to pieces I blame [insert political party name here]" it also makes it perfectly clear that you can have a spotlight, and a gun, after dark, as long as the rifle is secured (if you are in a vehicle) or unloaded and the ammunition packed away (if you are on foot) and the light isn't actually fitted onto the firearm.

[sungazer]

I am more concerned that other gun owners rally behind the Law and are ready to throw the book at them so easily. As gun owners a certain amount of unity is needed and we should be saying they are innocent until proven guilty.
The amount of gun owners that dumped on Michael Diamond when he once again found himself in trouble was astounding. In the end it was a judge that found him innocent a non gun owner most likely. Even though the guy is a dick he should of been supported.

[winton]

Police and GMA can take their suspicions and book you for a court appearance. Thats due process. You get your day in court at your cost.

We can't be quick to judge and we need to stand up for our rights. Don't wait until its you that gets dragged through the courts to plead your innocence.

I'd like to know what the police meant by firearms not secured in the instance of these 3 men being charged. Did they leave it in the tray?

Though throwing the book on these guys makes legitimate firearms owners appear responsible in the eyes of the public, I think its actually counterproductive in maintaining our rights. This does not make our hold on these rights any more secure.This only gives those who wish to diminish our rights (ie. greens) more ammunition to do so.

[Jon79]

in NSW they class a spotlight as "an artificial light source powered by 4.5 volts or more"

[Stix]

For what little its worth, my opinion is there is not enough info written above in the quoted press release to jump on the 'stick it to them' wagon.

One can only hope they ARE being dealt with fairly, & any charges are not based on stretching truths of the circumstances.

I tend to follow bjss's & sungazers thoughts...

If they are bad boys doing us good guys an injustice yes they should be dealt with...but god forbid they are being made an example of if they were in the situation BJss has described...!
Ive heard horror stories of folks being prosecuted for shooting a bunny from the wrong side of the gate in the middle of nowhere & we dont want that...!!

[Bruiser64]

The first thing that occurs to me is what would the behaviour of someone seeking to ensure they complied with the law look like? If it was me, knowing the consequences for breaking the law, I may have a head torch on me when out deer shooting, but no way would l have a spotlight in the car. That is pretty challenging to explain away. Also, if you do happen to get caught out after dark, having shot a deer, would you not also take every precaution to secure your firearm and ammunition? For me that would mean bolt and magazine removed (where relevant) and ammunition stowed away. I have no idea of the merits or otherwise of the case against these people. What it does tell me is that a prudent law abiding hunter would do everything in their power to remove the opportunity for law enforcement to ask troubling questions about their behaviour. At the end of the day your the person facing all the stress and inconvenience of going through the court process. Better to prevent it from even starting by demonstrating that you are utterly compliant with the law.

[Daddybang]

The first thing that occurs to me is what would the behaviour of someone seeking to ensure they complied with the law look like? If it was me, knowing the consequences for breaking the law, I may have a head torch on me when out deer shooting, but no way would l have a spotlight in the car. That is pretty challenging to explain away. Also, if you do happen to get caught out after dark, having shot a deer, would you not also take every precaution to secure your firearm and ammunition? For me that would mean bolt and magazine removed (where relevant) and ammunition stowed away. I have no idea of the merits or otherwise of the case against these people. What it does tell me is that a prudent law abiding hunter would do everything in their power to remove the opportunity for law enforcement to ask troubling questions about their behaviour. At the end of the day your the person facing all the stress and inconvenience of going through the court process. Better to prevent it from even starting by demonstrating that you are utterly compliant with the law.

Yep

[winton]

You only need to have the ammo stowed away and rifle unloaded when you are a 200m near a road correct me if I'm wrong?

[MontyShooter]

If you shoot a deer in daylight, take a photo of it.

[Archie]

You only need to have the ammo stowed away and rifle unloaded when you are a 200m near a road correct me if I'm wrong?

As per the factsheet, you need to do that if it's 30 minutes after sunset and you're carrying an artificial light in deer habitat.

[winton]

Gotcha, but is the distance I've stated correct? during daylight hours?

I understand you are not allowed to shoot across a public thouroughfare which would include tracks and trails?

[sungazer]

In Vic you can shoot 100 m from a road. Its not really spelt out clearly in the act but there is a section that says this.

[YoungBuck]

Heh I grew up in the area, fair chance I might know the blokes involved.

[Stix]

The first thing that occurs to me is what would the behaviour of someone seeking to ensure they complied with the law look like? If it was me, knowing the consequences for breaking the law, I may have a head torch on me when out deer shooting, but no way would l have a spotlight in the car. That is pretty challenging to explain away. Also, if you do happen to get caught out after dark, having shot a deer, would you not also take every precaution to secure your firearm and ammunition? For me that would mean bolt and magazine removed (where relevant) and ammunition stowed away. I have no idea of the merits or otherwise of the case against these people. What it does tell me is that a prudent law abiding hunter would do everything in their power to remove the opportunity for law enforcement to ask troubling questions about their behaviour. At the end of the day your the person facing all the stress and inconvenience of going through the court process. Better to prevent it from even starting by demonstrating that you are utterly compliant with the law.

Yep

Im glad i dont hunt under Vic law then...i cannot imagine going out during the day knowing full well ill be out at night & not have a spotlight with me to pop off foxes after sundown...'
That would feel like leaving the house without pants on or going bush with a quarter tank of juice...!

I hunt on a few properties where there are public roads between blocks, as im sure many of us do.
By the letter of the law, before crossing public road to enter next block i should spend 5 mins to pack everything up & lock it all away, drive down the public dirt road 100 yds then un pack everything again & load up, inadvertently missing the shot on the fox inside the next gate.

I know farmers dont pack up their firearms between blocks, as many hunters also wouldnt in these situations, & farmers would call me crazy if i told them i did that...!

So as for asking ones self what would the behaviour of someone look like whom is seeking to comply with the law look like, is a pretty generic overview us gun owners already battle against & is potentially unfair in many situations...my point is not to be argumentative, but to point out that every situation is different & should be judged fairly on its merits & based on intent using the law as a guide to arrive at sensible judgment.

[marksman]

not enough info to make a judgement
but I will say that if the police and gma are together they have been doing a blitz in an area that has been poached heavily

with regards to unsecured firearm it depends on if they were in deer habitat
if they were in deer habitat the firearm would be unsecured because it was in the back with a person who could easily access it
if it had been in the tray just in a bag it would have been secured by the law in deer habitat and not easily accessible,
they would not have been charged with unsecured firearm

[sungazer]

Stix there is the law for those that are going to do the wrong thing or have done the wrong thing. If you are out hunting foxes (which would most likely be on private property anyway where deer can be shot by spot light) even in deer habitat I am sure you would be ok if it was obvious that is what you were doing. The Police do get a bad rap some times, and yes they can be in a bad mood or whatever, but most of the time if you are genuine they know it and you are ok.

[marksman]

you cannot spotlight deer just because you are on private property
but you can spotlight pest deer on private property with an authorisation from the owner, you can get the authorisation permit from the dwelp offices
there are a few rules included and you must carry the permit but just because you are on private property does not mean you can spotlight deer,
in deer habitat makes no difference for spotlighting deer in vic

[sungazer]

The act was changed a while ago
All deer species (except Hog Deer) have been declared 'unprotected' wildlife on private land by way of a Governor in Council Order under section 7A of the Act.

The Order will be in place for a period of 10 years. This means that landowners will not be required to apply for and wait to receive an ATCW in order to destroy problem deer. Importantly, problem deer may be destroyed at night under spotlight which is one of the most efficient and effective ways to control deer.
http://www.gma.vic.gov.au/research/deer ... e-property

Previously, deer causing damage on private property could only be destroyed after landowners had applied for and received an Authority to Control Wildlife (ATCW) or by using licensed deer hunters. This created an administrative burden and often delayed control. This Governor in Council (GIC) Order removes that burden, allowing landowners to destroy problem deer at their convenience.
Can landowners use spotlights to assist in the destruction of deer under this Order?

Yes. This is an efficient and effective way to destroy problem deer and is a provision that was previously allowed for landowners operating under an Authority to Control Wildlife for deer.
http://www.gma.vic.gov.au/research/deer ... y/deer-faq

[marksman]

thanks for posting this info up sungazer
the permit I was talking about is the written permission form that you have to have on you that has to be signed and dated
anyone who wants to destroy pest deer under light should go to the links sungazer has posted and read em material properly as if you get caught spotlighting deer without taking the necessary steps you will get done, don't just think you can spotlight deer on private property

[sungazer]

It was something I wasn't aware of either and I was only looking at it and in fact reading your post from the point of view of being the landholder. Shows how easily you can be blinded by what is really written and by what is in your head. Being the landowner I have not been in that position and I thought it was very similar to the Roo Cull permit which is similar as if you are the land holder or not you should have a copy of the permit on you signed by the landowner.

Some of this red tape really is silly though, I wonder how many farmers make it a habit of getting a copy of there permit every time they pick up there gun. I make sure I have a copy in the gun bag. I also have a copy of my neighbors permits but in my pocket every time not sure I am that organized all the time.

[Gwion]

Good , throw the book at them .

My thoughts exactly.

[Gwion]

The first thing that occurs to me is what would the behaviour of someone seeking to ensure they complied with the law look like? If it was me, knowing the consequences for breaking the law, I may have a head torch on me when out deer shooting, but no way would l have a spotlight in the car. That is pretty challenging to explain away. Also, if you do happen to get caught out after dark, having shot a deer, would you not also take every precaution to secure your firearm and ammunition? For me that would mean bolt and magazine removed (where relevant) and ammunition stowed away. I have no idea of the merits or otherwise of the case against these people. What it does tell me is that a prudent law abiding hunter would do everything in their power to remove the opportunity for law enforcement to ask troubling questions about their behaviour. At the end of the day your the person facing all the stress and inconvenience of going through the court process. Better to prevent it from even starting by demonstrating that you are utterly compliant with the law.

Spot on.

Deer in the back seat, not the tub/tray.
Rifle unsecured.
Spotight.

Poachers giving us all a bad wrap.

[Gwion]

I'm all for supporting people who are put under pressure even while doing the right thing. More so, I'm for standing together against people who are obviously doing the wrong thing and making all firearm owners look bad. We have a hard enough time as it is.

These guys were in an area rife with poaching. They were in a pine forrest which i believe is off limits for shooting (correct me if I'm wrong). They were on a public road with an unsecured firearm. They had a spotlight in deer habitat along with unsecured firearm.

And... the big SAMBAR in the room, or in this case, the back seat of the cab...
Come on, who the f*** does that unless they know they've done the wrong thing and are trying to hide it!???!

Lets not get messed up trying to justify people doing the wrong thing. If they were a junky caught by cops breaking into someone's shed, none of you would be saying, "but they're innocent until proven guilty!"...