Boat Searches

[Guest]

By the way, it look's like most of you guy's do this at work. The weekend was pretty quiet. What's up with that?

[mistermom]

I'm doing this in between diaper changes, naps, and cookies. I'm also watching the kids too.

mm

[Blackstarluver]

As Sartre surmised the world is absurd! I have a thought, it's simple, follows the golden rule and if you don't like it well, you can't read my thoughts so there( you can infer if you'd like) If a CO comes up to your boat and you have nothing to hide INVITE THE CO TO SEARCH YOUR BOAT. By doing this you are extending a gesture of good will. This may be perceived as a little nutty ( okay really nutty ) but in the name of preserving our icthyological resources, it isn't a bad thing. It also empowers you to be the one who made the first move, thereby giving you a chance to expedite the meeting with the CO and allows you to go on your merry way quickly. Look at it as the old world salute, extending of open hand to show that you mean no harm and show respect. I am not saying, that you should say (using a dim wit accent) "Ya wanna search me" by no means! I am merely suggesting that this is a very diplomatic way of dealing with something we disprove of, Quid pro quo. OH BTW if you are a poacher, disregard the aformentioned.
Sorry this time I had to submit post.
God lyk!
JC

[This message has been edited by Blackstarluver (edited 10-01-2003).]

[Giant_Jackpot]

I was under the impression that we were talking about rulings on laws that already exist.

[huskminn]

Once again, the level-headedness of Spike douses the fire, reducing it to glowing embers of truth.

Although the two greatest factors affecting game populations are habitat and weather, poaching can have a significant effect, as well. Overfishing can hurt a lake and can also irreversably affect population genetics. Poaching of big game can do the same in some areas. Bird hunting is affected a little less.....grouse hunting even less so. But! That really isn't the point is it? A law is a law is a law.

Big G raises some very important points. Although I have called TIPS a few times and even given witness depositions, there have also been times when I've turned a blind eye. An old farmer from Iowa on Mille Lacs...so excited about the ONE walleye he and his wife caught...a nice 25" fish. I should have called someone, I suppose. Two guys on ATV's hunting grouse on a foot-traffic only trail....should have walked a 1/2 mile back to the parking area, written down plate numbers and called (they were long gone by the time I eventually returned).

If I practiced what I preached 100% of the time that would probably help CO's out. I suppose that most people who break minor game laws could also be breaking major laws, too.

Since were talking about putting more CO's in the field, it would be interesting to know what activities most often lead to arrest or citation. Is it surveillance, random checks, decoys, tips? That info would be key to coming up with a viable solution.

Spike is right. Protecting civil liberties and enforcing game laws need not be zero sum. We can do both.

And, SciFi, can you please, just this one time, try to take a situation for what it is without blaming The Evil Rich?

Mistermom, take a piece of advice from me...don't keep your money in the wine cellar! I used to do it and, after a few years, I lost millions to mold and mildew! Also, the cellar floor can be dirty and may soil your silk pajamas. After all, it's okay to be rich, but not FILTHY rich!

[Dan Wood]

Wow, this is starting to look like the political forum...

For what it's worth, I'm in favor of this change. I pay through licensing and donations to maintain and improve fisheries in Minnesota. I'm all for doing whatever needs to be done to catch poachers - they are taking money directly from our pockets as sportsmen.

[This message has been edited by Dan Wood (edited 09-30-2003).]

[uffdapete]

I fail to see the comparison of my boat, canoe, car, ice shelter, etc. with my house. The difference is my house is on private land and the rest usually are not if they are subject to a search.

Secondly, I DO mind paying more taxes and increased fees because I know, after working for the government at county, state and federal levels, that tax money is not spent wisely. If private business operated in the same manner that most government agencies operate they would be bankrupt and/or illegal.

I have been stopped several times by CO's in MN and Canada and most have been respectful. In fact I've usually learned something from them about the law or have been given a fishing tip or two!

[Giant_Jackpot]

Canitbeluck,

You make a great argument and I tend to agree with you on this. However, if I am asked to have my live well checked I am going to comply. Why, you may ask? Because my free time is too valuable to say no. If I said no I am sure I would be in for a long drawn out battle with the CO.

What I will do though is write to my state representatives and let them know I do not like the idea of being searched. They are the ones that can change the laws. I would encourage others to do so as well. If you have the time to be posting messages on this forum then you have time to send them an e-mail. And don’t forget to tell them to support the 3/16 dedicated funding too! I have heard directly from a representative that it does not take many letters or e-mails to make a difference.

[Walleye_GFA]

Sigh...

[Jarrod32]

I probably shouldn't get into this, but here goes….

A couple of points on the searches (the original topic). There are a couple of issues at play here. The first is the 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. In my home, I have an expectation of privacy. In my boat, or even my fishhouse, I do not. There is not even a lot of 'gray area' here. There is a significant difference - as far as expectation of privacy - if I am eating supper in my home or fishing on public waters in my boat. Very different.

The other issue that is at the heart of the matter is the CO's themselves. I have never had a bad experience with one. My brother is a law enforcement officer (not a CO), and the general attitude of law enforcement officers is that you will be treated the way you want to be treated. Blakstarluver kind of hit on this…if you are cooperative (sure, officer…no problem. Have a look in the livewell) and respectful, you will be treated in a like manner. If you are belligerent, sarcastic, etc ("you gonna keep looking until you find a violation?") that is how you will be treated.

Sure, there will be some exceptions. Maybe that is where the problem lies. A little more responsibility and courtesy on the part of the CO's overall would probably result in more cooperation from the general (fishing and hunting) public.

That's probably enough. And as a wild-a$$ supply-side economist, I'd better not even get into the ridiculous class-warfare, rich are evil argument. Though it is a discussion that I love to have - and have had many times - in the local taverns and pubs, I won't get into it here. Besides, class warfare has been discredited as a theory by the utter and dismal failure of the Soviet Union over a decade ago. It's an outdated argument.

[huskminn]

Fisher Dave,

Hey, if you think I quoted you in "hatred", I apologize....but, you are very mistaken. I did not intend for you to feel hated.

I almost always post with a because I enjoy public discourse and think it is vital to a society and system such as ours--a representative democracy. I think discussing issues like this force everyone (including myself) to examine our opinions.

It's always very easy to have an opinion...everyone's got one, right? However, it's not nearly as easy to validate an opinion with reason. That is why I try to push people to support their positions.

When you say something like: "Yes, it seems like a violation of privacy, but its neccessary and will benefit us all(except those violating the laws)" I absolutely shudder.....Hitler, Stalin and other fascist dictators have ruled millions with those very words.

Wait!! Please understand I am not likening you to Hitler or Stalin...I know you are nothing remotely of the sort. Those were just some mighty far reaching words you put forth!

Now.....back to the topic...

For those of you who support the ruling (by the way, the law isn't new in any way) I clearly understand where you are coming from. I struggle back and forth with this whole issue.

I've gone my whole life being accustomed to searches from CO's. I'm sure from here on out, I will always submit to a search. Mostly, a CO asks, "Mind if I take a peek in the livewell?" and I'll say, sure, no problem.

That's all fine and well. I never questioned it.....until this court case came about last year.

Perhaps this ruling will remain in a cocoon, not setting precedence for any other legal ruling in MN. That would be great...my worries would be alleviated and there would only be one unconstitutional game law on the books.

Anyone notice how many new gay rights related suits have been filed in Federal court since the Texas sodomy law was overturned? Anyone guess why?

Precedence...that's all I'm worried about.

[Giant_Jackpot]

Walleye_GFA,

Not sure how to respond except to day that if they did put that on my license I would still get one. I have nothing to hide. Don’t forget that they have set up roadblocks in order to catch drunk drivers.

We seem to be losing sight of the fact that these laws have been on the books for years. To me it is nothing to worry about. If you feel so strongly about changing the laws so they cannot do the searches we are talking about here, write to your representatives as I suggested earlier. Posting your opinions here will change nothing.

One common theme on this post has been that whatever the opinion is on the searches, everyone agrees that more COs would be a good idea. When you are writing to your reps, please include a statement that says you are for the 3/16 bill. As far as I know this is still alive in some form (I tried looking up the bill on the state web site so I could post the number but the link to the bills is down). This would dedicate 3/16 of one percent of the current sales tax to Minnesota natural resources. We need to have some type of permanent funding to do any good in the future. A good resource on how to contact your representative is the Minnesota Game and Fish Coalition (gameandfishcoalition.com). They have links that show you who your reps are and how to contact them.

[scifisher]

So, the fall of communism debunks the whole "theory of class warfare?" It would take more then a couple of beers before that made sense

Seriously though, the last post was correct. A common theme is increasing the amount of COs. Paying for them. Dedicating part of the sales tax would do it. So would raising fees for lisences.

Before we spend the money, how many do we need? Can we employ enough conservation officers so we don't have to have unwarrented searches? By the way, is there a reward for TIPs? How much? How about making a reward that is a VERY lucrative incentive to turning in poachers? Again, how to pay....

hmmm....

Another common theme....

scifisher

[Fisher Dave]

Wait a minute here .. I never said anything about UNREASONABLE search's.. lets not put words in my mouth, or assume that I feel that searching a boat was ever UNREASONABLE.

If someone is out there fishing, hunting, or anything else for the purpose of taking game(any action to take fish, birds, or mammals).. Their craft should be able to be searched for game at any time in a reasonable manor... looking in the livewell, coolers, etc... whatever a person would normally keep the fish in that craft. If the person was observed putting fish elsewhere with optics(an obvious suspect) a CO should be able to search the entire craft. A CO at an access to check fish in the livewell would not hurt my feeling either. All of these I would consider REASONABLE on most any circumstance..

UNREASONABLE and unacceptable to me would be *patting* a person down, searching a craft in an excessive and unorderly manor, and so on... or basicly abusing the power given to them in any way without good reason, or in an offensive manor.

I dont mind if a CO comes to my craft, looks in the livewell, checks my license, PFD's, legal equipment, etc .. they do their job and I watch them leave in 5 minutes and they go to the next craft. While duck hunting I have been checked many times and the CO will go through all ammo being sure its non toxic, check the plug in the gun, licenses, and on occasion, do a better search through equiment, decoy bags, blind material, etc to be sure I dont have too many birds .. It has never taken more than 10 minutes... this is ok with me and is protecting and preserving our hunting priviledge(sp?).

What is NOT ok with me while duck hunting is an episode I had a few years back when a CO approached me at 4:30 in the morning and searched all my equipment thourogly(sp?)and held me up for an hour before I could hit the water .. that was unreasonable, disrepectful, and uncalled for.

I dont want anyone to be *violated* for the act of fishing or anything else.. but in my eyes nobody is being violated for a CO to look in the livewell while your in the act of fishing. As for others blowing everything out of proportion with strip search's, etc ... only way anyone is going to deal with that is if they are breaking the law, and upset any enforcement individual and get themselves arrested.

huskminn... I know your comment wasnt directed at me as a person in any way, and no disrespect was taken. I understand you didnt agree with the statement, and respect it.

[Walleye_GFA]

How would you so willing to give away the right of fishing without unreasonable search, and those who want to "put a disclaimer on the lciense, dont like it dont fish..."

How will you feel when they put the same thing on a drivers license ???? Fishing is more of a right than driving isnt it ???

So, you dont like it dont drive... so if they want to pull you over for any reason they can search you at will...

Wow sounds bad then huh... well the COs are preserving our fish... well the LEO (law enforce officer) is saving lives by looking for drunks and drugs...

WHAT SAYETH YOU NOW ????

Wally

[196thDLR]

What is absolutely fantastic about this country we live in, is, we are able to have an opinion, and express that opinion without fear of repression from our government. So here is mine. The only thing about that bothers me about being required to allow someone to search all of my equipment and live wells, you are basically considered guilty of some infraction until you prove to the CO that you are innocent. Many times coming from the Ash River I have been subgected to a search of my coolers, boat storage areas and my vehicle. Why, you ask, because, I am pulling my boat. I am not engaged in any activity other than driving on a county road for which I pay taxes to drive on. I have broken NO driving law, but because I am pulling a boat, I am selected to be searched. That makes me very angry.

[Guest]

Who's responsibility is it to know the regulations protecting the resource?

[Guest]

196thDLr, So are they only supposed to stop the guilty ones? That might be tough. Light'n up or don't fish. Today I was daydreaming driving and a trooper gave me a warning for speeding. I didn't see him flash me coming from the opposite way and he said I was going faster after he caught up than when he originally saw me. A WARNING!! Nice guy!!!!

[196thDLR]

takekidsfishin: I hope you do what your username says. That is how this recreation of ours keeps getting better and better! However, your advice of lighten up or don't go seems a bit harsh. I don't think I'll follow it. I truely wish that I had a better idea for the CO's to catch the violators. I have always tried to follow all laws, whether or not I agree. The court has ruled, we will go back to the way the CO's operated 2 years ago. I have the RIGHT to be angry about it, I have fought for that RIGHT, putting my life on the line so that you, I, and all the citizens of this country can be angry if they want to.

Welcome Home ALL You Grunts Out There.

[Guest]

196thDLR, I can hardly remember the last time I fished, hunted, scouted, mushroom picked, or anything else involving lakes and fields w/out kids. Mine, their friends, other peoples, sometime's all of the above. I'm grateful that you've fought for our right's and freedom's. A CO's job is a thankless one. One I wouldn't want. His busiest day's are when we're having fun. Like I said just lighten up, no offense intended.

[Guest]

It scares me that people who claim to value their rights are so quick to throw them away. OK, you want to allow the CO to check your livewell. What about when you've gotten up obscenely early to get to the landing on opening morning, you pull in to the launch parking lot, and here comes Mr. CO.
"I want to check your livewell."
"But, Mr. CO, I haven't even been in the water yet!"
"You've got the boat, fishing rods, and a bucket of minnows. Are you hiding something?"
"No, sir, go right ahead and search."
While the friendly and courteous CO searches your boat, a line half a mile long forms for the ramp. Now you have to wait an hour to get on the water. But that's OK, because you had no expectation of privacy in your boat!
How about the guy who has a little Lund boat that he uses to cruise around for pleasure? He didn't even buy a license, and doesn't fish. Did he give up his rights because you bought a license and had nothing to hide?
Finally, there are way too many really scary opinions here to even begin to address them all. However, one statement from someone whose opinion I really respect on a lot of other issues kinda summed up the whole thing for me:
"We all have the right to contest or deny entry when searched."
HELLO??? ANYBODY HOME??? The right to contest or deny a search is EXACTLY what is being given up so freely here. CO's don't need the ability to make searches without probable cause. All that will do is ensure that they spend all their time arguing with bad ol' civil libertarians like me, who will not EVER give up a right quietly. I have nothing to hide, but I will never allow anyone to search my property in violation of the Constitution. All it will take for COs to do their jobs better is for everyone to call in offenders. Now the CO has probable cause and can search the bad guy. Everyone wins.

[Guest]

You can't just pleasure cruise w/out a license. The only way you can be on the water in MN w/out licensing your boat is if your duck hunting, figure that law out. I have a duck boat but also use it in the fall for trapping, sometime's at the same time. (sit in deke's in A.M. check yesterday's traps on the way in) But since I'm doing a little trapping the boat must be licensed. go figger.

[scifisher]

Giving up our rights to stop poachers should not be an option. This is the US of A, we should be able to figure our another way to do this. In fact, we should be making EVERY sacrifice before THIS. People died for these rights, how can we give them up for less then our lives. I have a questions, what are your rights worth to you? Your money? Your life? Would our country be the same without them?

scifisher

[Steve Foss]

The ruling does not deny your right to contest or deny a search.

The ruling is the current opinion of a single court, and there are higher courts.

Yes, the ruling shapes DNR policy, as such rulings always do. But if you feel as strongly as you do, you can challenge that ruling by contesting the C.O.'s right to search the next time the C.O. tries to exercise what he or she believes is that right.

That's what America is built on, the right to challenge law, and in fact re-write law if you have enough support.

However, unless you are rich or find an ACLU lawyer willing to take on your case pro bono, you're likely to have to pay through the nose to make your case. You and I likely don't have the money or the time to do this.

That's also what America was built on. To those who say there is no class system in America, I say: Get a clue!

------------------
"Worry less, fish more."
Steve Foss
[email protected]

[traveler]

Looooooong time reader, first time poster Whew, what a thread. I've read the majority of the posts here, and I must say, I've changed my mind. Which isn't easy to do, just ask my friends. (OK, friend ) Anyway, I was in the "no big deal" crowd at the start, and now all the civil rights talk has me all pumped up. So, score one convert. CO's should be able to do the job within the context of legal search that othere law enforcment must adhere to. Time for the lawmakers to figure out how to make it work.