DNR Must have probable cause…..

WOW!!!!! James found the soap box! LOL! I mean that humorously but at the same time, this was a treat! ~H2O~ on the go and FULL THROTTLE!!!

Nothin’ but , nothin’ but !!!!!

You are right about the “deer camps” that cause all the hubbub……………but one encouraging thing I’ve seen recently is a decline in the “old huntin’ gang’s”………at least in the areas I frequent. Studies do show a decrease in hunters and with less of them and less land to hunt than in days gone by, I don’t see a lot of “the old days” these days. I know they’re still out there and doing nothing to support the efforts of those worthy of our respect, but a lot has changed in the last 30-40 years. I’ve many relatives that all talk about “where’d the hunting go?” and refer to all the gool old days of the hunting camp. Now it’s individuals, small plots of land, and grandpa teachin’ the youngin’s………to a large degree. Maybe the settling down in areas I’m familiar with has helped contribute to a near 0 presence during my 9 day whitetail season? I don’t know. But in agreement, I let those CO’s feel like they’re dealing with a friend. I’ve always felt almost instantly comfortable with anyone who transcended that feeling to me when I needed to approach them and I figured it’d help if I conducted myself in like fashion. I can’t prove that it has or hasn’t but so far, so good.

James…………..LOL……………. ………………the soap box becomes you!

James,you nailed it!

This thread is really going nowhere.

Ditto James.

Good post James!
I too wish we would up the license fees and Minnesota budgets to increase the level of CO activity on our favorite body of waters. These guys and gals are in the biz not to be a millionaire by any means. They do their job with pride and a incredible care and devotion. I have yet to have a bad experience with a CO officer in my boat. Treat them with the respect they deserve and you get what you give….period.
A fishing license is the one thing that we can say, “we get our money’s worth”. This is a small price to pay for a incredible privaledge!

Thanks to all who protect our waters!

Amen, James and the rest!! This goes back to what I was saying earlier about the original post–this started out as an issue about whether the DNR can check our fish or not. If you’re legal, they’re not going to run you in, tear apart your boat, or rough you up. And if they do and are out of line, then that becomes a different issue to deal with. We can’t eliminate the proper means of law enforcement because every once in a great while an officer abuses it. Herb, this post is DEFINITELY “going somewhere” and serving its purpose of getting people to think.

I’ll have to agree with Herb. There are over 60 threads on this post that just go back and forth from two sides.

I made absolutely no comment what so ever on the topic that started this thread. What is my opinion?…. much to-do over nuttin’. Nobody has gained anything worth having. If you think differently, so be it.

I was commenting on the negative stereotyping of largely hard working, dedicated and honest individuals that work as DNR officers and CO’s across the midwest. These folks are not a malicious band of thugs wearing balck and dropping out of helicopters in the night out to meet fine quotas. Don’t go there. You guys can tear each other up over this probable cause deal. What ever. Try and make the DNR out as bad guys, ruthlessly harrassing and violating people’s constituational rights willy-nilly as they see fit… well, I have something to say about that.

Have a nice day.

While I don’t spend nearly as much time on the water as I’d like to, I spend way to much in the deer stand. All I can say is the view must be pretty good from the cheap seats. It is fantastic that all of you have been blessed with such pleasant CO’s, but not all of us are that fortunate.

In reply to:

---

Just a thought here guys… isn’t the likely answer to the nearly overwhelming presence of DNR during the IA deer season almost CERTAINLY due to rampant game law violations?

…bunch of drunken, armed hulligans…

---

No. I have seen a lot of the things that you and Rivereyes are talking about also, but the word “rampant” is hyperbole. I have never seen anyone mix deer hunting and alchohol, and have never even heard a credible story. People who love to hunt know that the only way to continue is to be responsible.

How about some math: If two people in every county knowingly participate in illegal taking of game, that’s 0.079%, or 8 in 1000 people. So why would it be that 80% or higher could lay claim to a random stop, or an unwarranted search?

In the above ATV scandal their “serious crime” was that one of the party members was sitting on the tailgate of the truck with an uncased and unloaded gun while they backed the ATV off the trailer. BAM! DNR was on them like flies on s**t – driving game with an ATV. No shots fired, no deer in sight. Then they get a half-hour lecture that goes something like this:

In reply to:

---

“You boys sure are lucky we’re only taking your ATV and your deer. After all, we could be taking your trucks, guns, clothes, and anything else that you have back at the hotel.”

---

That’s what I mean by shakedown. Rediculous. Tell me again how strongarm tactics like that are good for both hunters and CO’s?

My “stupid tax” was paid in full for an uncased gun violation, with the only problem being that the gun was in the case!!! The zipper was broken an inch from the end, so it zipped around the butt of the gun, but you could fit your index finger in the hole. BAM!! Uncased gun, $145.

We were specifically told during Hunter’s Safety that the CO had to shake the case and have the gun come out. Guess the only “stupid” in my stupid-tax payment was trusting the CO teaching the class.

All in all while fishing, I’ve had positive experiences. Like I PMed StillaKid, only 2 ‘bad’ stops out of maybe 20 total. That’s pretty good, 10%. So just as a question to all of you, what percentage is acceptable?

I can only take your word on you never have seen or heard of someone mixing hunting and drinking. The next time you drive by a rural liquor store during hunting season, ask yourself why that big sign says “Hunters Welcome” right below a big can of Beer Brand X. Hunters + Hunting Season = Big $$ for liquor stores. You may not participate. Good. Neither would I. Guns & liquor don’t mix. But I’m here to tell you, when you’re in the woods on public land or anywhere else you don’t know every last hunter on the property, there’s a good chance somebody’s just over the ridge with a loaded weapon looking for anything brown that is half in the tank.

But enough about this generalization of the DNR… It sounds like you have, according to your accounts of the story which I do not doubt or contest in any way, a case that should have gone to court. A case against a couple specific CO’s that may have been much too severe in the way they dished out citations. Did you fight these tickets/seizures? I have a hard time believing any judge would uphold either case as you presented it.

I’m out of time… gotta run.

A large percentage would probably agree on this. It would cost more to hire a lawyer to fight and beat the charges than to just roll over and pay the fine. And the dnr knows the #s are in their favor. Just my op.

Isn’t any and every citation issued contestible by law? In WI, I can’t recall anyone paying for a contested citation court date, especially if they won. Those cases are typically handled by just a judge and no lawyers if my understandings are correct. I know I’ve had a chance to contest even parking tickets if I felt wrongly cited…………..but that is WI. It may vary between the states.

Also, I tend to frequent Friday night fish fries when I’m up to the cabin and if it’s the Friday before the hunting or fishing opener, but even more so—hunting, “The Wonder Spot” is loaded wth blaze orange or fishing vests………….and they’re clearly not eating fish! Again, my experience shows this practice to be a dying one, but it certainly isn’t to the point of being uncommon. Beer and Yuker/poker/Ship-Capt.-Crew, girly mags, and dirty jokes ’til 3am…………I know the groups that do it and I’m thankful I’m not in any of them. I have friends that are, but they think they’re just like everybody else. Some don’t even bring guns! They just want “the deer camp”. “If it’s brown, it’s down!”…………..heard that more times than I care to recall.

I don’t mean to paint an ugly picture because I know the good guys outnumber the bad guys, but it’s not the good guys who get all the publicity or the CO’s wound up and it’s a valid point to be considered.

Peace Out!

A lawyer wouldn’t be needed to contest such a case. All you would need is a valid arguement and the belief that you were right. A couple witnesses wouldn’t hurt either. Any DNR official or CO mishandling a case to such a degree that a person will publicly use the word “scandal” in reference to that officials performance would certainly qualify for such a response.

Certainly the DNR’s power doesn’t extend to our court system… does it?

There are presently two types of inforcement officials. Type I is the official that we call the traditional police officer. this officer inforces criminal codes of state and or comunity.This officer is subject to EXCLUSIONARY RULES,which means that this official must obey the court rules of search and siezuer and miranda warning,follow seach warrant directions by judge or the case is thrown out.this officer can have you put in jail for life,or even the death penalty if he through a states attorney and a agreeing judge and jury decide to. The second type is the regulatory enforcement official,this is the person,whose authority is granted by statue as is type one,to enforce regulations in housing code violations,health and sanitary regulations and envirment concerns,and building codes .These officials do not arrest people,they do not carry firearms and do not have exclusionary rules to content with,but they do not have the Right to enter a private home or bussiness with out permission from the owner or representative of the owner,now you say how can he do the job when they won,t let the inspector in to see if the thing is built right or if there is polution or rats in a restuarant. Well if their not let in to inspect they go to a judge and get a administative warrant,which allows them to do thier job. If the owner refusses still the inspector can revoke the licence for occupancy, close the place down or have a sworn officer (with gun) assist them in making entry.Now to the point.The 3rd type is the conservation official.This official is a combination of type 1&2. This official has been given the authority (by state statue to REGULATE GAME LAWS, and be able to do so as a type 2 official this person can search and confuscate any thing that carries or could cary contriban game or anything that is under the statitory powers given by state. Unlike type 2 they do not need a administrative warrant as other regulatory officials need,they arrest you for obstruting a POLICE OFFICER.Now to the nittygrity,now this short part is my interputation of what may have promted this dicission. First the ice shanty case where CO,s found drugs while inspecting the ice shanty for Game violations. well we know what happened there, then the live well incedent. First the reason some of powers were not chalenged before was because most people don,t have resorces to challenge the state,and MOST casses in past did not call for jail time unless severe violations but most were or stupid tax,but now you are talking about drug busts etc. that could put you in prison and along with some abuse complaints the courts are now looking at the civil rights issue,Is the dnr of minniesota a regulatory department or a police officer that should be subject to the exclussionary rules of the constitution. obviously the courts agree,at least the appellet court agrees that the dnr follow official type one rules.Now the state still has the right to appeal the appellet dicision to the minniesota supreme court. Then this may go to each state where the dnr will be examined. It appears now that if on the st.crois or part of Mississippi river Mn dnr cannot search but wisconsin dnr can so if mn dnr is refused look at live well they walki talki to wisconsin dnr saying this guys giving us a hard time fix him up for us. Now someone stated that this would not happen to anyone well speaking from 28 yrs law enforcement that this may only happen once out of a thousand,but if your the ONE thats a 100% as far as your concerned.Remmember Police officers a very honorable but they still recrute from the human race.Someone mentioned hot tips,well under official type I ,if a unknown tipster calls in and gives a tip that his buddy next door has 20 deer in his freezer and refusses to give his name, then the co has to servey the place untill the guy brings in another deer then he can make records of deer and he brings another in he can then get a warrant based on what CO saw. If the tipster wants somthing done right now HE will have to go with CO infront of judge and swear under oath that he saw buddy with 20 dear in freezer thats in the basement of house at 111 bushwack place,knawbone mn.If the man comes accross sounding like he knows what a deer looks like and other small details like did he have clear vision at time,was he drunk or does he use drugs so that his vision was impaired a search warrant would be issued to CO listing that the search is at the address stated and that ONLY the freezer can be searched. If the CO goes in the next room and fines a pill of stolen goods,well their excluded,and if after he saw this stolen stuff investigates and makes a 100 arrests and he can see his name already in lights,TO BAD BUDDY!!!!! all 100 are set free. It,s called THE FRUIT OF THE POISON TREE,witch means any thing found after the illigal search and any leads,any thing opened the door for more evidence is dismissed,thus the term exclusionary rules,break one and your man goes free

I myself am in the law enforcement field. I beleive this will simply make the officer’s job a little harder. There will be less, honest people fishing and hunting, and more people saying “Heck, they can”t check use let’s take a few more.” the DNR only has a limited resource of man power and by taking some of the tools away from them, it only hurts the General public.. Maybe the DNR will have to get more creative and come up with a refusal law, like the DUI laws and state,” Yes, you can refuse but lose your licsense for two years, you have the choice, hopefully something good will come out of all this. For the most part, honest fisherpersons, and hunters have no problem with having a officer check there game. You will always have the jerks, no matter where you go. I just hope this does not bring out more dishonest people taking our resources away from us. Practice CPR(Catch,Picture,Release)

James, just like Johnny Cougar – I fight authority, authority always wins. If I take it to court, it’s the word of a sworn officer against the word of a man who stands accused of a crime. As far as I know, there is no burden of proof in cases like that, so you just toss $145 into the coffers and hope it doesn’t happen again.

Excellent post, Old Ranger. There is a wealth of information in there that is a great help to me in understanding this mess. If we all had a better understanding of the current system, it’s workings and limitations, a happy middle ground would be much easier to find. This line sums it all up:

In reply to:

---

…they still recruit from the human race.

---

An interesting thing that occurred to me today: If you were forced to sign a search agreement as part of your license, or have a refusal clause, then how would that jive with Wisocnsin’s recently passed Right to Hunt and Fish consitutional amendment? That’s probably another thread, but it seems that would cause a lot more trouble than this court ruling, as game violations would have to be made felony offenses to deny offenders a license next year.

…and on and on it goes.Good article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune from Ron Shara…another Iowa guy. http://www.startribune.com/stories/534/3130105/html

When I clicked on the link I posted,it brought up a”file not found”page but,if you go from there to”sports”,to”fishing”,you’ll find it.Sorry,Mike

thanks for the INFO… there is ALSO an interview by Dennis anderson that discusses MUCH of what we have speculated about here… very interesting…. its titled….

Court ruling makes DNR’s job more difficult

He absolutely hits the core of the argument here:

In reply to:

---

But we can’t have it both ways — a right to privacy and the public’s right to protect its natural resources.

---

Unfortunately, the term “Rights” is very narrow. The State, or “Public” cannot – by definition – have rights. It has only those regulatory powers granted by the citizenry or taken by force. The Public Trust is a man-made apparatus, and at the core of our belief system is the notion that rights objectively exist and are not created or instilled by man. When the Chinese army turns a student protest into a bloodbath, it does not mean that they do not have the right to assemble, only that the state is denying it. The State, on the other hand, cannot act in defense of it’s “rights,” only in defense of the rights of it’s citizens.

An interesting point to consider is the “public” claim on the fish. If they come from a hatchery, then there is no question as to ownership, as someone paid for the fish. Perhaps they should tag every fish that the hatchery produces and only licensed anglers can keep those fish. It seems odd to me that a 51% majority can lay claim to a naturally occuring phenomena.

Boy, you guys sure can have some with our problems and it is very true we have our share of slob hunters . I have seen very poor hunters who were into the beer by 9:30 AM . But! dont judge us all by that . We are serious buck hunters who pass on most of the bucks we see every season. When I got my ticket we were rushing to get in one more drive before dark. In my haste my case was not completly zipped . I think this is BS and if a CO was not in it for the cash it could be easily overlooked or a warning issued but they never are . I would love to have the time to bow hunt but fall is a very busy time on the farm and we really see some good ones in front of the combine.Some us have real jobs James and cannot fish and hunt most of the fall season.So lets not judge so harshly us lowly slug hunters. We must split our limited time between walleyes and small game and deer . So many hobbies so little time . I am sure all of the hunters up north are clean and pure and all the bad apples have settled to the bottom of the barrel down here .

Lowly slug hunter?? Come on Dave, don’t be so hard on yourself. I know how you feel though since I’m a trapper and sometimes folks like to generalize and I get thrown in with the bad boys of this sport too. I can’t and won’t speak for James or anyone else on this board but me, but I really don’t think he was lumping us all together with the rotten apples.
This thread has really gotten people to speak their minds though and I think that is good. Just wish I didn’t get so radical about subjects like this.

Thanks Herb … I feel better