Wis DNR enforcement abuse story help sought!

I am researching an article for the Janesville Gazette on possible abuse of power by Wis. DNR wardens and wondered if IDA folks would be willing to comment on the record.
This story stems from an incident which occured a month or so ago in Rock county…here’s the skinny….
A sportsman named Chris Cass from Janesville trapped a fisher, tagged it, and contacted the DNR for the appropriate tag.
When Cass took the tag to the local warden he confiscated it and did not offer a ticket, receipt or explanation.
Cass contacted me and I advised him of DNR complaint procedure, also advising that he make it clear to DNR that he was contacting me.
Meantime, I contacted Wis. DNR Chief Warden Randy Stark to advise I was monitoring the situation.
A week ago Cass got a receipt for his property, and an email last nite advises the warden has returned the fisher.
Cass said the warden justified the confiscation of his property as “there wasn’t enough blood on your tag…I don’t think you tagged this fisher at the point of kill”.
As Davy Crockett said “Be sure you’re right, then go ahead”.
Cass did. Justice was served . But a sportsman was rousted and hassled, essentially in violation of his Constitutional rights under the 4th amendment.
I have been advised by many friends to walk softly, less the DNR will come after me. But I’ve rarely walked away from a fight, and NEVER walked away in matters of principle and justice.
Straw poll time…do y’all think an article about the fisher incident is justified?
Gut check time…have you been the victim of Wis. DNR enforcement abuse and are willing to make a statement to that effect?
Don’t get me wrong… for the most part I believe DNR wardens are truly heroes in gray, protecting the resource for all of us. I wholeheartedly support their efforts–until their authority under law is exceeded…with a caveat that says issuing a bogus citation along the lines of “you’re guilty until you prove yourself innocent” is no way to do business.
Those who have unjustified animus toward DNR enforcement policy & procedures need not reply to this post…but if you HONESTLY believe your rights have been violated, your response is genuinely appreciated!!!

Do not know about there but here they can do anything. Bill of Rights be danged.

Just my two cents worth, but there are always two sides to every story. With what you have written here, maybe you have only heard one. I would be interested in finding out what the warden involved has to say about the incident before I pass any judgement.

Ted,

Was the CO a rookie? It looks like he made a mistake or a bad judgement call. Any chance he might learn from this and be a better CO in the future? Like you said, most of them are good guys so maybe this one deserves a second chance before he has his mistake published in a newspaper article. Just a thought!

Rootski

Personally, I wonder what the damage to Mr. Cass was? The fisher being held by the DNR for a month? Mr. Cass scratching his head wondering why?

I’m thinking that it may have been a slight hassle for him, but that’s a small inconviniance for the CO to ensure the animal was taken legelly.

I’m a “believer”. I believe that the CO didn’t wake up in the morning and say…”who can I harrass today”. The CO’s actions might have been better communicated…but I trust in the CO’s actions…

my penny and a half.

Quote:

---

I wonder what the damage to Mr. Cass was? The fisher being held by the DNR for a month? Mr. Cass scratching his head wondering why?

---

What damage? There is plenty of damage anytime a person’s rights are violated. Rememeber that in this country you are supposed to be INNOCENT until proven guilty….While I don’t know the full story here, sounds like just the opposite.

Quote:

---

that’s a small inconviniance for the CO to ensure the animal was taken legelly

---

It shouldn’t be an inconvenience period, and having been harassed myself by CO’s before, I wouldn’t trust their actions for a minute. Not enought blood on the tag?? Pretty POOR excuse if you ask me.

I’m sure you hate to see an attitude like mine, but there are also a ton of people out there that feel they have been harassed by an officer, thus the cause and effect attitude.

I have to agree with Slop.
Here’s a scenario for ya: The warden confiscates a legal caught fur, puts his own tag on it and sells it for some easy money and hopes that by chance the guy he got it from lets the subject die thinking it just wasn’t worth the hassle with government officials and red tape involved.
I’ve only heard about things like this happening to close friends and have no real proof other than thier word on the matter. And I’m sure they won’t want to draw attention to themselves by bringing the subject up. And besides, it was in Iowa, not Wisc., which is what Ted is looking for.
I do have a good one about Ill. DOC and the feds that happened to me, but again, not Wisc.

CO is no rookie–he’s been around for years. After I went to the Chief he FINALLY phoned me…six days after my last round of emails and phone calls.
I’ve got many pages of notes and emails from several people who say they have been treated rudely by this warden
The couple times I’ve met him in person he was cordial…but you would think when a media person makes many, many requests for info the least the warden could do is to refer the media to somebody else if he doesn’t feel comfortable in talking
Not saying the media should carry more weight than Joe Angler…but if the warden can answer a question for the media it could save identical contacts by the general public x 100’s.
If the warden refuses to contact you its pretty hard to get both sides of the story. After over 30 yrs. of doing this job I’m not about to write a story til all the facts are in.
It would be irresponsible to write about a case still under scrutiny. But this fisher incident appears to be cut and dried—and I have the gut feeling than many similar incidents are out there.
Seems to me it would be a better world if wardens worked under the premise of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. If you’ve got a 10 inch walleye on the stringer, you get a ticket. Case closed…but a warden who confiscates a 32 inch walleye just on the gut feeling that a fish this big should be too smart to be legally caught is going beyond his legal authority…and creating an incredible amount of ill will towards all other CO’s who are out there trying to do a conscientious job.
I believe that operating on nothing more than a “hunch” in taking property is nothing more than violating a sportsman’s Constitutional RIGHT TO ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEISURE under the U S CONSTITUTION’S 4TH AMENDMENT.
Anybody out there been the victim to this kind of abuse? enquiring minds want to know!

I have to agree with BrianK. I do NOT think that most CO’s wake up in the morning looking to harrass sportsmen and women. I have hunted and fished the last 20 plus years with very good service from the CO’s that I have come in contact with. This is from Minnesota, South Dakota, North Dakota, Ohio, Illinois, Colorado, Ontario, and Manitoba. I hope that I am NOT in the minority here. I abide by the laws and regulations and I have had only GOOD experiences with CO’s. 690reece

OK Ted, that’s different. If the guy has a bad track record then it’s a different situation. Nothing wrong with shing the light of day on a problem if you know what I mean.

Back in the early 70’s, when catch-and-release wasn’t very common I got stopped as I was leaving Lake Elmo. I had a pretty good day releasing probably 50 Largemouth. When I got back to the access I was stopped by a CO who wanted to see my license. No problem. Then he asked to see my fish. I pointed at the lake. He said something like “Sure, buddy. Open up your trunk”. He then tore my boat apart, he tore my trunk apart, he tore the back seat out of the old Dodge Dart I was driving! Of course there weren’t any fish to be found so he just turned around and walked away without saying a word. My whole rig was laying all over the ground blocking the ramp! At that point I had had enough and informed this guy that he was an a**hole. I told him that I obey the laws and that I cooperated with his search, but he’s treating me like I was a drug smuggler and I didn’t appreciate it. It got pretty heated, let me tell you. The next few times I went fishing there I took a friend and a tape recorder just in case this guy tried any shenanigans. Fortunately I never saw him again. And better still, ever since that incident I haven’t had any problems with a CO.

Rootski

Let’s hear what everybody has to say if the Warden does not want to justify his actions in a clearer way than his ridiculous original reason then so be it he can read the article on his own.

Principle!

Ted’s just looking for instances backed by first hand knowledge of the “abuse of power” that takes place in the outdoors. It most likely doesn’t happen on a daily basis, but it does happen and he wants to bring it to light in print. I applaud him for this.
Just because they have the title of CO, that does not give them ‘power over all’, nor the right to harrass.

I would think that if the CO had a reason behind seizing the animal, he would have brought it up to someone before this got out of hand, and obviously, his superiors feel he did something wrong and resolved the situation . That is the Chiefs job.

Now I want to stand up for the warden because they have an incredibly difficult job. They have a ton of ground to cover, most people they talk to are angry and carrying guns, have insufficient funding for the workload they carry, and have the job of judge, jury and executioner. I have known a few wardens on a personal level throughout the years, and they are put in difficult situations everyday, and by and large, most do a fantastic job.

If this CO overstepped his bounds, kick his , if he had proper reasoning, or can explain his reasoning to the letter of the law , but give both sides an option to tell their side of the story.

My feelings are if both sides are not given their side in the story, then you don’t print it, even if the CO refuses to talk to you. It would shed a bad light on all the good CO’s ou there and give them even more bad press.

Sorry TedPeck,

Did not mean to hijack your post with my rant about CO’s. Just realized I went a different way then the question you asked. Just my $.02

Quote:

---

even if the CO refuses to talk to you

---

If he has nothing to hide, why should he refuse to talk? It would be simple for him to give his explanation and be justified; end of story….I think he was in the wrong and has been told to not say anything.

Just another point of view.

I have to say that all but 2 of my experiences with COs have been very good. I feel that they have one of the hardest jobs to do. But I feel they need to have to answer for thier actions.
I have given them nothing but respect. I have also become friends with one I see regularly.
But I have had 2 instances with the same CO neither one ended with ticket. But the way that he spoke to us and the things that he said we had done had no place. I am not a law breaker and never have been! I found myself being accused of things that were not true. Both times he was unable to ticket me because he could not prove I did anything wrong (because I didnt) and I wouldnt let him give me a ticket for somthing I didnt do. They were very bad situations and the second one I called the Sherif that I saw drive by, over so I had a witness. At that point it was not a big deal and he left us alone. But I will not go back to that area because of him. I have a freind that still does and he said the CO has as Big of an attitude as ever. This area is only good for about 2 weeks a year. The fishing is fantastic and I would love to go back. But not untill I know he is not in this area anymore.
One final note we never kept a fish in 5 years and everything we had done was totaly legal.
And I think he still is looking for a magic hole that we were to have put those fish in.

Get things back in balance here guys…………….

Right now, a lot of these post are saying that the CO is guilty until proven innocent…………..

THAT is what this post was about……..and now the tables have turned…….

Ted;
My opinion is do what is right and that is report the NEWS!!! Report both sides of the story and let the people take it for what it is worth.

If the Warden did wrong, sobeit, but let the “people” know what their rights are, as that being the basis of your article.

99% of my encounters with CO’s have been nothing but quite pleasurable and with a good heart. However, there was “one time” when a CO came barreling in, in the middle of a deer drive, with his 4×4 truck to see if everyone had their license……….He could have waited until we finished our deer drive instead of wrecking the hunt………

It is scenarios like this: Bad judgment. That give the COs a bad time……..Yet when people call TIPS and they don’t see immediate response it is also “the Department of No Response”……

So, in general, if a CO is pushing the limits, that is why they have the appropriate channels to put an end to it. Use those channels to make things right.

There isn’t one job out there, that nobody makes mistakes or that there maybe one person who shouldn’t do that job……..The same applies to CO’s. There is without doubt there are bad ones, just like there are bad anything in ANY job position.

I say write the article!!! Good grief, we are not living in a censored country here and there obviously won’t be any repercussions…….

Quote:

---

Right now, a lot of these post are saying that the CO is guilty until proven innocent…………..

THAT is what this post was about……..and now the tables have turned…….

---

Our reply’s are based on what is posted here…While they are opinions and may be wrong, we haven’t violated any of the CO’s rights. The person in the original situation was deamed guilty first and proven innocent. Those are facts, by the order of events that occurred, and that’s the difference. Opinion -vs- Facts

Quote:

---

The person in the original situation was deamed guilty first

---

Cass wasn’t given a ticket…just took the fisher…I don’t believe that means he was deemed guilty…

Kinda got off track here huh Ted?

Ted the only way I think a story on this is justified is if you can come up with consistent behavior similar to this and prove it. Similarly, you only have provided us thoroughly of one side of the story. That “other side” may stay unknown and for that a story is not justified. I’m the type of person who gives everyone a chance(innocent U.P.G.). No one knows for sure if thats the real reason the fisher was confiscated. For all we know Mr. Cass may have been taking advantage of the fact the others beleived this C.O. was/is unruly. No one likes a one sided story. So until that CO speaks up, theres nothing to talk about.

I saw this while sitting at the airport, and figured I would wait until tonight to see how the responses go, and see what or if I had anything to add.
Fact:
There is a lot of “I think” and “I heard” and “He said” things that can do serious damage to people’s careers and reputations. The inportant thing to me is not to throw all the CO’s into a group, and say “They all are bad, can do what they want, etc….” It would be just like saying that because one or two people from IDA have an issue with authority, that all people on IDA are the same way. There are channels like Gary said. Every CO (Public employee) has it as a part of their review input from the public. If you know the guy’s name, and can find his supervisor (Easy to do here in MN) you can get your complaint on record. In Gary’s case, what that warden did was illegal. You cannot interfere with a hunt. Unless he had reason to believe laws were being broken. (I would have filed a complaint on that one.) You have to use the system to benefit from it. I would agree, put the ropes down, and back away from the tree until you hear both sides of the story. Slop, what do you know of the guy (Cass) who had his pelt taken away? Ted, were you there? Or was this second hand info?

I also beleive until BOTH sides of the story are told, then there is a non-issue here. Hearsay, means nothing. Many times we hear one side of the story and emotions get to running a little high. Then if we get to hear the other side of the story, things look much different. I agree with Tuck, reputations and careers can be damaged in a hurry by what we hear by word of mouth.

You guys ever hear that old saying?

“if it walks like a duck and sounds
like a duck, it must be a duck.”

That’s all I’m saying

And that is analogous to this story how?

You would not agree that having both sides of the story would aid in making an informed decision? Or does your disdain for authority figures over ride your sensibilities?

Come on Chris

You’re 100% correct, but as I stated above, when one side cares not to tell his story, I’m gonna play the odds

Distain for authority?? I take offense to that Honestly though, I respect authority to the utmost degree, until I see rights possibly violated.

I’m done for now.. I’ll wait for more data

The guys name isn’t even listed! But he is guilty already?

Ted, do us all a service, and follow up on this. Contact the CO himself, and explaing who you are, and you would like his side of the story.

I will be curious as to what he has to say.

Maybe I’ve mis-interpreted this:

Quote:

---

but you would think when a media person makes many, many requests for info the least the warden could do is to refer the media to somebody else if he doesn’t feel comfortable in talking

Not saying the media should carry more weight than Joe Angler…but if the warden can answer a question for the media it could save identical contacts by the general public x 100’s.

---

but from what he wrote above, and knowing Ted is a writer(media), I guess I assumed that he DID try contacting him…..Am I mistaken?

If Ted has tried and still nothing, I stand by my presumptions….If he hasn’t, then I’ll think about retracting my statements.

tag, no double tag backs..lol

What is the CO’s name?

Slop,

Being in Law Enforcement myself, it’s quite common to see the attitude you have. The comment “having been harrassed myself by CO’s before, I woulnd’trust their actions for a minute ” is pretty telling on how you feel about all CO’s. Not knowing the circumstances behind the harrassment you received I won’t question what you say. But to group all CO’s and their actions based on one individuals actions is a bit reactionary, don’t you think. I have noticed in the past that you are one to jump in very quickly on the behalf of all bass fisherman when someone has a bad experience with an individual bass boat/fisherman. I agree that the group as a whole should not be jugded by the actions of a few. That is one of the reasons I really have a problem with the article Ted is proposing. The media really has a way of sensationalizing the actions of a few. In one article all the good things that are done by CO’s will be wiped out. What people will remember all CO’s by is the actions of a few over zealous officers. Instead of nuturing a cooperative environment between citizens and law enforcement, it creates an Us vs. Them attitude from both sides.

No matter what profession you look at, you can find examples of abuse. Those cases are really easy to remember. The problem is that instead of high lighting the individuals who did wrong, a blanket is thrown over the entire group. Did the CO in the case Ted is refering to do wrong? Maybe, maybe not, I don’t have the facts from EACH Individual. Even if he did, that doesn’t mean they all can’t be trusted.

Shane

Ted,

If you are doing an article on Wisconsin DNR, CO complaints, why not just go to them. It’s public record. I would not advise coming here and looking for sportsmen to pony up their stories from last week, last month or last year. If the issue they had was legit, they would have filed and proceeded with the process and that should really be what you are after… “who has filed a complaint with the WI DNR for alleged abuse of power by a CO”. If there was no formal complaint submitted at the time of the situation, there’s no story to print. You’ll never get an objectively based article going about this the way you are. Start at the records end and work your way from there. At this point I’ll have to say that your interest in an article on the abuse of power by WI CO’s might be putting the cart before the horse. I’ll ask a question to all here, “Have YOU ever filed a complaint with the WI DNR regarding this issue?” If you have, please help him out by providing him with the case number and the follow-up… Ted will take it from there.

Andy