Search my boat ??

[Guest]

The busing 'threat' became reality. Even without adequate walkways for the kids. I wouldn't assume any statement made is just a 'scare' tactic.
If the quota is exceeded, I think they are required to take action. Not necessarily immediately, but in a 3 year window.
It seems that total C&R might not be the answer either. That is nearly the case with this year's slot, and hundreds (thousands?) are going up to catch all they can. If even only 10% die, if someone C&R's 60 fish in a day, they effectively waste 6 fish. 50% over their limit.
What a waste........
gte

[huskminn]

I hope I didn't bring Mille Lacs into this discussion by way of my hooking mortality analogy. The two topics combined are too big for my brain.

Dave,

I need to apologize for introducing school budgets into the fray. This is not the appropriate place for that discussion. I was only trying to use analogy to support my contention that the DNR is using scare tactics, preparing the general public for the worst of all outcomes (hitting them where it hurts), so that citizens and politicians will more readily support something a little more reasonable, such as a proposal that anglers/hunters waive their rights vis-a-vis searches without probable cause or a warrant when they purchase their license.

As I said before, if the DNR tried to reduce season lengths or close some seasons altogether, that would not only be the biggest cop-out possible, but it would bring the wrath of anglers, hunters, resort owners, hotel/motel owners, bait shop owners, gas stations, bars, etc. etc. down upon them. There would be so much political heat and public pressure on them that the entire department would turn to oil, coal or perhaps even diamonds.

By saying that they are going to have to limit seasons, they are saying that they simply can't abide by the same rules that every other law enforcement entity must abide. And most of those other entities deal with much more serious, dangerous and socially harmful crimes.

I contend that they are simply using it as a scare tactic.....tell them the worst is going to happen so they are happy with something slightly better.

Flashman:

Refusing a request for search cannot give a law enforcement officer probable cause/reasonable suspicion that you have broken the law. Otherwise, the protections afforded by the Constitution would be meaningless.

[This message has been edited by huskminn (edited 07-30-2002).]

[TUMBLEWEED]

Okay, you got me!! I'm sorry if it offended
anybody, but it would seem a large problem
exists out there,since the regs come in
two languages.The point being: they don't know the regs,and or like to think it doesn't matter= poaching (plain and simple) Nuff said bout that,as its hard to read someone's total attitude, or should I say misread it about racism. I just don't buy
the "I don't speak english" excuses.

I hope I have explained myself a little better!!

[Dave]

Another stat to remember is that "other" law enforcements also have many more officers. Trying to catch lawbreakers without the "knock and open door/livewell" policy will be harder to nab the bad guys. Just my opinion.

[Uncle Bill]

I have a novel approach.
Why not make the lawbreakers pay, instead of the law abiding citizen.
Just to throw a number out there lets start with a $3000.00 minimum fine for first offense.
Deterrence and revenue.

[Scoot]

Uncle Bill,

Although your suggestion doesn't seem to fit in too well with "let the punishment fit the crime", I'm in total agreement with you. Make it so dang expensive to break the law that you'd have to be crazy to do so. It would be similar to driving drunk in Europe. It would impact them so negatively that there's very little drinking and driving because the cost to one's life would be enormous. If you want to poach- pay a very hefty fine when you get caught.
However, even with a huge-A$$ fine I'm still against this law. What's a huge fine do if you don't have the authority to have a decent chance to catch an offender?
Scoot

[huskminn]

Dave,

I agree with you. There aren't enough CO's to currently do the job that is needed to be done.

I mentioned before that I was willing to pay double for a license to put more CO's in the field......not another gym in the basement of the DNR HQ, but more CO's in the field.

[Nuclear Fishin]

I agree. Cut the funding for all that stupid stuff that goes on and get more enforcers out there. I have been hunting and fishing my whole life and have only been checked twice. There's just not enough of them out there.

And I also should say that those COs were the nicest and most polite guys I have ever met. I say give the DNR more power and more money and cut all the unnecessary stuff.

[Flashman]

Husk, or anyone else,

We’ve all read the statement or gotten the jest of what’s been stated. We all know why the outcome was what it was. But here’s my thinking….if a CO asks to see your fish why would you refuse his request unless you are hiding something? Is it really that much of an evasion of privacy to open a live well and show them your fish? I’m usually pretty proud of a catch of fish I intend to eat.

It’s pretty much impossible to judge the size of a fish through spotting scope/binoculars. So what can our CO’s do? What will be a probable cause? Having a family member in law enforcement I know probably cause can be pretty much anything; a missed turn signal, tail light didn’t work, you name it they can find a reason to pull you over. I’ve ridden in the car with him, cutting a corner is enough probable cause to pull over a car load of teens only to warn them and find beer in the car.

I’m sure most people will gladly open the live well and display their fish. I just feel it’s going to be the open ticket for those who want to pillage.

Obviously this is a very heated topic, a great discussion…. I look forward to more reading.

[Guest]

My constitutional rights are something that are VERY important to me, and something our founders realized we (average Joe citizen) needed to protect us from the government.

There have been comments that, who cares, what do you have to hide. I have nothing to hide, and most fisherman don't, and most fisherman will probably gladly show the CO's their catch of the day, as will I. This ruling is simply upholding your rights.

It would be rediculous (and unconstitutional?) for the state to REQUIRE you to sign a waiver of your rights in order to fish. Think of what they COULD do with a waiver.

The end result will be that the DNR must adapt their patrol tactics to meet constitutional requirements.

As a person who works in law enforcement, it would be GREAT (not really, but...) and EASY if we could go around harrassing people and ignoring their constitutional rights, because we MIGHT be able to find something on them. But that's NOT the way the law works. Law Enforcement is around to uphold the laws, not break them. If law enforcement breaks the law, how can the system be more corrupt?

Good Luck,
Rusty

[huskminn]

Flashman,

I, too, would be inclined to give any CO permission to search my boat, livewell, coolers, etc. I have been trained to yield to that request and I never have anything to hide. There has been one time that I have broken a game/fish law.....my dad had forgotten to remove his cooler from my vehicle after a weekend of fishing in South Dakota. I stayed an extra day and kept three walleyes. There were two in his cooler. I was one over limit and didn't realize it until I opened the truck for the CO to inspect. My bad.....I gladly paid the fine. Nothing like that will ever happen again.

I think the vast, vast majority of fisherman are like me.....they don't break game laws.

Do I have a problem with a CO wanting to inspect my boat? Personally, no, I don't. However, I am not ready to say that what is okay for me should apply to every citizen.

If a cop showed up at my door and demanded entrance, I would question why he wanted in so badly. If a patrolman always pulled me over just for the heck of it once a week on my drive home from work, I wouldn't like that. I'm not hiding anything in my home and I wouldn't have been breaking any traffic laws, but I am subjected to the authorities nonetheless. The constitutional amendments that protect me from the cop and the patrolman are the same ones that protect me from the CO.

I find it very difficult to excuse one type of law enforcement officer from the Constitution, but not the others. Logically, philosophically it doesn't make sense.

It may be the open ticket for those who want to pillage. If so, then our current system of law and justice is also the open ticket for those who want to speed, smuggle foreigners, make crystal meth in a shed or do any other illegal thing that can be done.

As Basspastor said, with freedom comes responsibility.

[Dave]

Ah, huskminn, some of us do have to pay extra for school busing now because it would be cut. It wasn't a scare tactic, it happened.

[This message has been edited by Dave (edited 07-30-2002).]

[Guest]

Rusty,

Here's the thing. I think your and the civil libertarian interpretation of the Constitution is in error. That's a huge part of the problem. Making the constitution enjoin with this particular agenda is dangerous. The civil libertarian definition of "rights infridgement" is increadibly permissive and I would say at times extreme. Government needs to be checked not handcuffed, bound, and gagged. (Yet at the same time other aspects of the government are seeking less accountabitity, larger influence, and more power)

Unrelated but related to this is the abortion issue. Funny how it took 200 years for legalized abortion to become a fedrally guarenteed right. Where did this come from?

The "liberal" court, but the "libertarian" court would be more accurate. Judicial activism and the highjacking of the founders system of government for an elite lawyertocrisy. In my opinion our system of government is out of balance with the courts and goverment beauracrisy occupying the key power positions.

I'm sorry but this country is no longer "For the People, By the People", but is more aptly "Buy the Lawyers, For the Lawyers." Civil Libertarianism is a perversion of the founders intent, not the fullfillment of it. And we are slowly reaping the consequences of this error. Common Sense is almost always one of the casualties. And in this case, if it is upheld, than some fish and game that should not be will be casualties as well. I guarantee it!

Sorry for the long post, but there is more to the Constitution and The American system than individual rights, freedoms, and liberties.

[Guest]

Rusty,

One more thing.
You wrote that the Dnr must adjust it's tactics to those that are "constitutionally required." I would refrase that to say judicially mandated by arbitrary fiat.

Why should judges have any say in how proper law enforcement is done?
Where in the Constitution are they given the power to micro manage this way?

[Scoot]

Here, here. Well said Basspastor.

[huskminn]

Basspastor,

I also think that tried and true Civil Libertarians who adhere to the party platform are a little too extreme (in my opinion!). I certainly agree with them on some issues, but by no means all.

That having been said, the final comment in your post is an indication of exactly how far away from the Constitution we as a country have landed.

The Constitution was drafted to give the citizenry power over its government and to specifically define how the gov't was to function, how officials were to be elected and how the checks and balances were to play out. The underlying function of the Constitution was to try to ensure that the federal gov't never got too big for its britches, too powerful, uncontrollable. The Constitution is what protects the citizen from his/her own government.

The Bill of Rights was drafted to acknowledge and protect what were perceived to be the God given rights and freedoms of INDIVIDUALS. Our entire system of justice, governance and economy is based on the rights of every INDIVIDUAL to exercise their given freedoms.

What has changed about our system in my lifetime, and prior, is that we are moving away from the protection of INDIVIDUAL rights and towards the protection of GROUP rights. Laws have been passed that afford more protection, reward or power to members of certain groups than to individuals in general. Many of these laws are based on race, gender, sexual preference, physical ability, certain professions and/or income. Some of these laws have been ruled unconstitutional and others have not.

The law that gave more power to MN CO's than other MN law enforcement officers was recently deemed to be unconstitutional.

I am of the opinion that when a gov't rewards or punishes individuals according to which group they do or do not fit into, the system is no longer protecting the individual's rights. Either the government ensures that we ALL have the same rights, freedoms and protections, or they don't.

From the get-go, both state and federal gov't has done nothing but become more powerful, tax the citizens more, regulate the citizens more, and employee more of the citizens (thereby determining their economic future). I believe that the individual, the citizen, should take ground from the gov't when he/she can get it, because that opportunity doesn't come often.

I would agree with you that this country is increasingly less "for the people, by the people" and I think that trial lawyers have had a lot to do with that trend. However, lawyers also have a lot to do with reversing that trend. At some point, we've got to have lawyers no matter what we're trying to do within our system.

Judicial activism is nothing new and is seen as a "problem" by us if any decision is contrary to what we believe it should have been. The judicial system is supposed to interpret laws according to their constitutionality and according to legal precedence. The judicial system is supposed to ensure that everyone gets equal protection under the law.

I don't know if you actually read the ruling, but it's very easy to see why they arrived at the ruling that they did. You may not agree with the ruling, but base on what they had to work with, it makes LOGICAL sense. I try to avoid using "Common Sense" because everyone has their own interpretation of what that is....including you.

I completely disagree with your statement that "there is more to the Constitution and The American system than individual rights, freedoms, and liberties". Oh, contrar! Individual rights, freedoms and protection are the underpinning of the American System and are exactly what the Constitution was intended to provide, protect and foster.

One cannot pick and choose where the Constitution applies to state and federal law. To many chinks and the armor is useless.

Or so I think! Great discussion.

[Guest]

Shaking my head........

Basspastor,

Calling me a "civil libertarian" is ridiculous!!! I do not align with the civil liberties movement, but once and awhile, even they get something right. I don't feel it necessary to give up my rights as a U.S. citizen, because the DNR is too lazy to do their job properly.

Going through law enforcement schooling, I've sat next to people who are going to be sheriff's deputies, Minneapolis police officers, and DNR conservation officers. We all studied the same laws, and the same constitution. We all patrol the same PUBLIC lands, roads, and get this... WATERWAYS.

Now someone explain to me why a DNR officer should be able to do something, and a regular police officer should not? You drive on public roads who according to JUST4FUN would have you believe is the property of what... the State Patrol??? So you must follow their rules.

Wrong, public land is EVERYONES property. We all pay the taxes, and one government organization should not be able to bully everyone else around because it's "their jurisdiction".

I wouldn't have such a problem with the C.O.'s checking your fish or deer, but they must follow strict rules. No random searches of the rod locker because their might be fish in there. When they perform searches like that, they are "fishing" (looking for something to nail you with) themselves.

Imagine the stink if the State Patrol decided to pull cars over at random and perform full out searches. Front page news, and most of you would be appalled. As Huskminn said perfectly, EVERYONE must abide by the same rules.

What's ridiculous is ruling the pledge of allegiance to be unconstitutional!!!

Good Luck,
Rusty

[GooseSlayer]

I believe, since the co's can't search a persons boat they should make the fines for over harvest outragesly high.I for one have no problem with giving them my permision to look through my boat.But I have a 12 year old fishing buddy(my son),that I am teaching to enjoy fishing the right and lawful way.I see people catch they'er limit,go home ,drop them off,and go back to catch more.If the laws are hard to enforce,make the law breakers pay through their teeth.Law abiding fisherman have nothing to hide.Just my opinion.

Keep setting hook!
Dave

[Guest]

Bass Pastor,

"Why should judges have any say in how proper law enforcement is done?
Where in the Constitution are they given the power to micro manage this way?"

The judges have the final power in judging the constitution. The judicial system is that of checks and balances, with the U.S. Supreme Court being the final decision maker. They have everything to do with proper law enforcement!!! They judge whether or not a police officer is following/interpreting the law correctly, and if they are acting according to the constitution. They were given this power from the very beginning when our justice system was established.

Goose Slayer illustrated the main point that "WE" need to take action when witnessing violations with this:

"I see people catch they'er limit,go home ,drop them off,and go back to catch more."

The biggest problem is that many people don't call, jot down a license plate #, or boat registration. People just expect the C.O. that's probably not around to take care of it. But as law abiding citizens, WE need to take the responsibility to report such instances.

Good Luck,
Rusty

[Just4fun]

I guess I grew up with the idea that fishing and hunting were privledges, not rights. If I didn't like the rules I would look else where. I feel that if I am allowed to use this land, the least I should do if follow the rules.
If I were to come to your house, or you to mine, there are differences in the rules. Can smoke, can't smoke. Shoes off at the door, leave shoes on. Cursing allowed, no cursing. If these rules are broken someone might be asked to leave, even though you have the RIGHT to do these things. Well, Public land is the house of the DNR. If you ask to come in their house, be prepared to follow their rules. If you feel the rules are to binding on you, don't go.

Nobody likes restrictions, even those WE pay to enforce the rules.

Side note: Everyone keeps throwing in the constitution, but isn't it the constitution that states the Federal government can only tax for the purpose of defense, or make rulings when the State could not? That poor document has been re-interpreted to near death, and bears little resemblance to the current laws.

[Just4fun]

Rusty,
I never said the State Patrol owns the roads. They are an enforcement agency that is given authority to patrol them. You sound like we should be able to do what we want on them because the roads are OURS.
I had to prove that I should be allowed the PRIVLEDGE of using the roads. My drivers license didn't just come in the mail with my social security number giving me the RIGHT to use them. If I'm not willing to follow the rules, I loose the privledge.
I'm ALLOWED to utilize these public facilities as long as I abide by the rules set forth.

[Fish On!]

A few hypotheticals to ask ourselves, why then do we even have DNR officer's

DNR: How many shots do you have in your gun
DUCK HUNTER w/ SHOTGUN, fully loaded, no plug: 3 shots officer.
DNR: May I check your gun.
Duck Hunter: no.
DNR: May I check that bag full of ducks.
Duck Hunter with bag that is actually full of loons, egrets, three shot muskies, and a bald eagle: no.
DNR: You know I have the right to search you and your duckstand to enforce poaching and hunting violations.
Duck Hunter: No you don't.
DNR: You're right, I'm pretty much getting paid by the state to cruise around in my boat all day.

DNR: Just getting back from the stand?
Deer Hunter in his car dressed in full orange: yup.
DNR: I see blood on the bumper, mind if I check your trunk.
Deer Hunter with only an antler permit has two does, 27 grouse, 116 red squirels, a timerwolf, a moose rack, a loon, 350 out of the slots walleye, and a bald eagle in his trunk: No.
DNR: You know I have the right to search your car to enforce poaching and hunting regs.
Deer Hunter: not without probable cause you don't.
DNR: your right. I'm pretty much getting paid by the state to cruise around in my car all day.

[huskminn]

Wow........this thing has digressed.

Just4Fun: Public land is not the house of the DNR. Public land is your house and my house. It doesn't belong to the gov't, it belongs to the public. Following your logic, it would be just fine if the DNR determined that no one was ever allowed to say a bad word about the DNR while on public water-ways or land. Never mind that it violates the 1st Amendment rights to free speech, it's the DNR's house--they can make whatever rules they want and if I don't like it, I just won't go.

Regarding the State Patrol/driving/roads issue. I agree that hunting/fishing is a privelege, as is driving. We all agree to abide by the rules during our use of public roads, land and waterways. That is not part of this debate though. What is at issue is the fact that one of the rules was deemed unconstitutional. Surely you're not saying that we should be forced to abide by unconstitutional rules?

Fish On: C'mon.....you know a guy could never get that much stuff in his trunk!

Instead of continually debating this issue, we should be trying to think of solutions. I personally would like to see the DNR be able to inspect a vehicle/boat, but, that needs to be done within the bounds of the law. I heard some blurb about Iowa....they passed legislation that specifically defined probable cause within the context of game law enforcement. Something to the effect that if one is simply in the act of hunting/fishing, that constitutes probable cause and the CO can search accordingly.

I've no idea if that law has ever been tested and I have no specific details about the law itself, but, it does seem that Iowa realized the constitutional problems associated with allowing CO's to search on demand without taking care of the probable cause issue.

The legislators in Minnesota didn't use that caution when the "old" laws were passed. And now the price is being paid.

[Guest]

Just4fun,

I was refering to your comment "Well, Public land is the house of the DNR. If you ask to come in their house, be prepared to follow their rules. If you feel the rules are to binding on you, don't go."

While it's true hunting and fishing is a priviledge, as is driving, it still doesn't give the law enforcing body the RIGHT to ignore your RIGHTS.

The State Patrol is the "top dog" when it comes to highways, etc... but they CAN'T make up their own rules and randomly ignore peoples civil rights. A state trooper, is no different than the DNR C.O., so therefore neither should be given a special right/priviledge to ignore your rights. They are both protecting an equally important area, and should be treated equally.

"One must abide by the rules or else lose their priviledges" Isn't that the truth!! But, it's also true that the people enforcing the laws must also follow the laws.

Maybe I was misinterpreted, I'm not, nor would I ever say you should do whatever you want because they're "our" roads. What I'm saying is no enforcing agency should make you abide by rules, that are unconstitutional, just because they have jurisdiction there. Hopefully that clears that up.

As Huskminn said, we can debate this until we are blue in the face, but we're not getting much done. I have faith that the judges will never allow violations of the constitution, to become acceptable. I agree that the DNR needs to be allowed to check your catch, but they must do so under strict guidelines, and without busting down your door, just because...

Does anyone have any solutions?

Good Luck,
Rusty