New AIS law

[Kyhl]

More direct comparison would be the dwi checkpoints that MN has ruled unconstitutional.

I did bring this up a few times, and said that even if I was not in violation, if I'm pulled over randomly and searched, I'm going to court...

I'd go as far and argue that the state should reimburse people for the court costs because they should know and have reason to know through public precedent that this law is unconstitutional but they chose to force the situation anyway.

I know, spit in one hand and wish in the other but this law is nonsense.

[Grum]

One would think these "Lawmakers" would have a legal dept. to play devils advocate and avoid easily foreseeable lawsuits.

Maybe if the Lawmakers who voted for this sticker program and now the online test + new sticker were held accountable for the cost if the program fails before it pays for itself. We the taxpayers wouldn't have to foot the bill for so many failed programs.

[BEEFEATER]

BEEFEATER, I dont believe they can pull you over along side the road without probable cause. Thats all jhall555 and myself are saying.

for sure! Also i agree with reinhard that most CO's are pretty decent. On the other hand ive encountered sum pretty strict local sherrifs on the water. Once the water patroll was writing me out a ticket for not having adult life jackets. Mid way through i picked one out and showed him on the life jacket were it said ADULT SIZE LARGE! haha dident get the ticket afterall

[dietdew]

I created a facebook page to help get the word out on locations of the checkpoints. If your interested in being a part of it i will post the link for you to "like". [Note from admin: Your post has been edited. Please read forum policy before posting again. Thank you.]

[Hockey Guy]

BEEFEATER -

Here's an example

Do you remember the traffic light cameras? Running a red light or stop light and you'd get a ticket in the mail...you don't see those around anymore in Minnesota. Those were ruled illegal after it became a law and the law was reversed and no longer valid.

Same thing here.

Good luck this weekend everyone.

I hate to get technical here, but actually the traffic cameras per se were not found to be unconstitutional. The issue with the traffic cameras was that people figured out that you do have a constitutional right to face your accuser and cross examine them in a court of law. Since you obviously can’t cross examine a camera, the government realized that the word on this would eventually get out to the general public and everyone would just take the citation to court and it would be dismissed. I know, splitting hairs…

Anyhow, I would just like to say that it is interesting to see how the public opinion on this topic has shifted over the last few months. It seems to me that there are a lot of people that have turned against this law but when it was first brought up there were far more people for it. I have even noticed some people on this site do a complete 180. What concerns me is that it took the “nuisance factor” to increase in order for people to change their opinion of the law. Then there are people such as myself, Truth Walleyes, James R, and some others that knew from the start that AIS doesn’t have anything to do with why we should all be fighting this law. I get the impression that some of you wouldn’t have a problem with this law at all if you were only pulled over for five minutes or less and then you were on your way. I hope for the future sake of this country that people start to look at government intervention in the context of whether the limited powers granted to the government by state and federal constitutions is being overstepped or not…

[fishnowworknever]

It was unconstitutional.

I'm pretty sure it was thrown out due to the fact that the owner of the vehicle may not actually be driving the vehicle. You can't issue a ticket to someone who didn't commit a traffic violation...and there was no way to prove otherwise.

Either way, the law was reversed.

http://www.startribune.com/local/11585516.html

[James_R]

Yes, legal precedent should be the main concern here. Government loves to test the constitutional waters with laws like this and expand them once they become firmly established. Just because a new law as it is currently written won't have a direct effect on you doesn't mean that law makers or LE won't expand on it at a later date and target you or your favorite activity. The government loves to go after and isolate small groups like hunters, fishermen, smokers etc. Just because you are not in one of those demographics doesn't mean that they won't eventually use those same tactics on you or your group. It kind of seems like if the state passed a law that taxed everyone with a red truck a $5000 user fee; most people without red trucks in our state would say "I don't care, I don't have a red truck." We all need to start looking beyond our little corner of the world and start looking at what's happening to other people especially when it comes to the law.

[TruthWalleyes]

They will continue to push unconstitutional laws our way because they know that one of these times we are not going to push back, and the flood gates will be open.

[yonk]

LOL!!!!i guarentee the one's i support do not support this. do yourself a favor and call and ask questions dude. also call your reps and express your feelings to them. that's what's important. good luck.

Dude???LOL all you want You have not a clue. I am so up in the faces of the reps they would see the brown eye of all the folks they represent.

Just like you I am concerned, well maybe not like you as I dont like to be spoon fed with propaganda, for our interest in our stride for good management of our resources .

I actually have a bit of biology behind me and references of DNR biologist I deal with, as for hatcheries, that under the table disagree with actions being taken. Under the table because any outspoken publicity is cause for retaliation from the higher ups. Its all public record as for studies done and all come back inconclusive as for interrupting the Eco system, check it out.

In an earlier post on Zebs and the report being buried, I submit this as an example. Let me guess you regarded this as false and did not fallow up on the claim, right? The sum like you with the head berried in the sand to only listen to what you want to here from a certain faction that is fed to you is our downfall to our freedom. Knowledge should free us all! I do not know if its true but it sounds good.

SERIOUSLY! If you have questions look for an outside creditable source to get an an even objectionable view on the dilemma to further your horizon on the subject. Talk to your bait shop, Hunt down the whole seller, talk to former hatcheries and so on to get a clear view on whats going on. Leave that suburban shell and talk with them then make a conclusion. Your rep does not know [PoorWordUsage] and your buds don't have a clue!

Joust with me! Really! I'll wait until you contact your uninformed buds to tell you what is. Then I'll let you in on the truth.

Call me yonk or Yonk! If you want my respect. If you don't want my respect I can not do the same for you. reinhardt.

LOL!!!!!!!! No disrespect

[yonk]

I'll give you an example how messed up the DNR is. The DNR rely on boom shocking in parts for tallying a count on species. Well this system does not affect all species. Take in account the short nose gar or even sturgeon or the long nose gar. DNR says no Short nose gar inhabit the St.Croix. I just witnessed a spawn of hundreds of short nose gar just recently in the backwaters of the St.Croix.

Yes ,I do know the difference between the long nose and the short and besides that I had a hatchery guy that raised both there that time to teach me on the spawning and the the stages after. It was an awesome experience to witness this ,then to come back to see the eggs clinging to plant life 3 days later. In five or so days we will go back to see the fry clinging to leaves as they migrate to the surface gulping for food and air.

Same goes for the Minnesota river. Boom shocking shows lows yields so what do they do? On ground surveys contradict the boom shocking surveys. Funny DNR takes Boom Shocking as the model to fallow.

Point is Testing is flawed for an accurate count. Is this purposeful or just plain incompetence ? Please! school me.

[Scott M]

I'll give you an example how messed up the DNR is. The DNR rely on boom shocking in parts for tallying a count on species. Well this system does not affect all species. Take in account the short nose gar or even sturgeon or the long nose gar. DNR says no Short nose gar inhabit the St.Croix. I just witnessed a spawn of hundreds of short nose gar just recently in the backwaters of the St.Croix.

Yes ,I do know the difference between the long nose and the short and besides that I had a hatchery guy that raised both there that time to teach me on the spawning and the the stages after. It was an awesome experience to witness this ,then to come back to see the eggs clinging to plant life 3 days later. In five or so days we will go back to see the fry clinging to leaves as they migrate to the surface gulping for food and air.

Same goes for the Minnesota river. Boom shocking shows lows yields so what do they do? On ground surveys contradict the boom shocking surveys. Funny DNR takes Boom Shocking as the model to fallow.

Point is Testing is flawed for an accurate count. Is this purposeful or just plain incompetence ? Please! school me.

Not sure what this has to do with the AIS law, but you might want to check your claims, the St. Croix is on this species distribution table for long and shortnose gar as is the Minnesota River:

http://hatch.cehd.umn.edu/research/fish/fishes/distribution_table.html

Are you suggesting that boom electroshocking is ineffective for longnose gar, shortnose gar, or both?

[Antero]

Facts sometimes get in the way of a good rant......

[TruthWalleyes]

I got a kick out of this one.

My buddy just moved up by Leech lake, lives on Emily. He's workign for the forest service. About a month ago, there were lot of fires, so my buddy and I are talking and he says, "We pump water from any lake, infested or not, and spread it all over" He knows of a few times where they took from infested lakes and distributed very near to non infested lakes to put out natural or controlled burn areas...

Good to see our state services are concerned with transfering invasives...Maybe they'll transfer them for us and we can get rid of these laws.

[Sonicrunch]

I got a kick out of this one.

My buddy just moved up by Leech lake, lives on Emily. He's workign for the forest service. About a month ago, there were lot of fires, so my buddy and I are talking and he says, "We pump water from any lake, infested or not, and spread it all over" He knows of a few times where they took from infested lakes and distributed very near to non infested lakes to put out natural or controlled burn areas...

Good to see our state services are concerned with transfering invasives...Maybe they'll transfer them for us and we can get rid of these laws.

HA!!

Now that is funny.

We really only have ourselves to blame. Mankind that is.

[Scott K]

Maybe they need a sticker on their helicopter !