Do fish and game laws supersede constitutional rights?

[Pony Soldier]

I may be off (most likely) but in my observations of warden shows, it appears to me that in the states that game wardens are part of the state police they tend to be intrusive, obnoxious and in general bordering on an enemy of the people. However the people of those states appear to be too stupid to live. Maybe they deserve each other.

I wouldn't walk in the woods after dark without a loaded gun. It's not that I intend to kill a game animal but am likely to defend myself from a mtn lion, moose or a grizz - at close quarters. I've had a couple stand offs.

When my tags a filled then I am a coyote hunter just like I am shooting out my front window or after the season closes for big game. Last year I carried a gun with fixing fence because we had a wandering grizzly in the area. Or the year I was armed all the time after a cat ate one of my foals. I guess I just live in a differant world.

 

[ClearCreek]

the issue that comes to my mind is wyo non residents in wilderness. SO we can fish there but not hunt there? I would think this is unconstitutional but hell im not an attorney and I don't know how it works.

Actually a nonresident, when properly licensed, can hunt within a Federallly Designated WIlderness in Wyoming without a guide; you can hunt upland game, small game, migratory birds and predatory animals

A nonresident just can't hunt Big game or Trophy game within a Federallly Designated WIlderness in Wyoming without a licensed guide or resident guide.


ClearCreek

 

[2buffalo]

State and local governments are free to put restrictions on firearm use

I have always found this statement interesting.

Can a state pass and enforce a law prohibiting you from exercising your first ammendment rights? How about the fifth ammendment and due process?

How about the 6th or 7th ammendment? Can States take those rights away?

It seems the 2nd ammendment is the only one that people are OK with taking the right away?

 

[wyosam]

If fought far enough, those types of cases could probably be beat. It would come at the cost of making those violations nearly impossible to enforce. Game wardens have a tough enough time, I don’t see any reason to make it harder. Attitude goes a long way in the gray areas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wapitibob]

So some places you have to have a license just to go with some one that is hunting thats weird. If my wife draws a deer tag i go with and the wardens have never had a problem here. I know people who just run their dogs pheasant hunting with out a license and the wardens have no problem. I have shot a bunch of coyotes while skinning a deer out here once while the warden was checking my tag all he said was nice shot.

Guys would buy a bear tag, say they were Bear hunting, then shoot a Deer/Elk and put the wifes tag on it.
No problem tagging along or even open carry.

It is unlawful to:
• Hunt with a centerfire rifle during the deer and elk seasons and dates in the Wildlife Management Units listed in the Centerfire Rifle Restrictions table without a used or unused deer, elk, pronghorn antelope, bighorn sheep, or Rocky Mountain goat tag valid for the dates and area being hunted.

 

[KurtR]

Guys would buy a bear tag, say they were Bear hunting, then shoot a Deer/Elk and put the wifes tag on it.
No problem tagging along or even open carry.

It is unlawful to:
• Hunt with a centerfire rifle during the deer and elk seasons and dates in the Wildlife Management Units listed in the Centerfire Rifle Restrictions table without a used or unused deer, elk, pronghorn antelope, bighorn sheep, or Rocky Mountain goat tag valid for the dates and area being hunted.

poachers going to poach. That’s just keeping honest people honest with laws like that .

 

[Maverick1]

Nobody has called upon the resident expert in these matters yet, @mtwarden. Perhaps he’s wise enough to keep a safe distance from these types of hypothetical, no-win discussions.

 

[M44]

Sidenote from my county.
Several years ago, a warden was driving down a gravel road during deer season and spotted a hunter in a tree stand a little over a quarter mile off the road. He whipped his truck into the driveway of the farmhouse, drove through the barn lot, and opened the gate. He then proceeded to drive right up to the hunter in the tree and check his license .

Well, the farmer was in the barn and observed the whole thing. He retrieved a chain with a padlock and locked the gate behind the warden. Then he just stood and waited.

The warden returned and demanded the farmer unlock the gate. Farmer said he would , but the cost was 100 dollars. An argument ensued. The infuriated warden called his headquarters at the Capitol expecting to get his ego soothed, but instead their reply.....Pay the man.

 

[Predator_SD]

You can hunt right til end of shooting time (30 min after sunset) then you must unload. So the walk out from blind to truck or treestand to camp or whatever you must be unloaded.

What if you decide you’re coyote hunting on the way out? WI you can shoot yotes 24/7 365 days a year even during deer season. No dice in MI?

At least they let you stay out in your stand until closing man i thought they wanted you completely out by closing!

 

[Predator_SD]

I don't think the constitution holds the power people want it to.
case in point, the 1st amendment was tossed out the door during the pandemic. The right to assemble.

This was not everywhere just so you’re aware. Chicago, LA, New York sure. But those people are accustomed to doing as they’re told. Where i’m at we weren’t restricted from doing anything.

 

[Caseknife]

I was hunting with my 44 mag Super Redhawk many years ago. A warden pulled us over and checked our licenses, slow speed road driving opposite directions and we both stopped, asked if my handgun was loaded, nope. I asked what if it was, I have a CC permit, he would have given me a ticket if it was.

Accompanying my buddy on an elk hunt in Wyoming in grizzly country, was going to carry my 44 mag, called ahead of time to verify the legality. This is Wyoming, we can't control what you do in the woods, essentially, just don't caught with a dead animal.

 

[g_reems]

I've debated asking this for a long time but here it goes... This is a discussion we seem to have every year at our deer camp and it pops up throughout the year. The question being, why do fish and game laws seemingly supersede constitutional rights? Or perhaps they don't? I'm hoping to get some discussion points out of this and just spur some conversation in general i suppose. some examples that we have brought up and questioned before-

I live in Michigan so these may be state specific.

-In Michigan, specifically while deer hunting but maybe with other species as well, you have to have your weapon unloaded at the end of shooting time. I have received a written warning for this (I was ignorant of the law) and know of others who have been ticketed for it. My question here is how can it be made illegal to open carry my firearm on public land? Isn't that one covered as my right to bear arms?

-It is my understanding that DNR does not need a warrant to enter your property, or to search your home as long as they have probable cause. I always wondered why DNR is exempt from requiring a warrant. (i think someone introduced a bill to require a warrant recently)

-Recently saw the hunting public episodes about Ted getting a ticket from the state of Mississippi. They stated he was hunting without a license. the scenario as-told was that he was filming for another hunter with no weapon, call or ammunition on him. Yes the rule book says he has to be licensed to accompany the hunter afield, but my question is how is it any different than taking your camera for a walk in the woods? Is that illegal? It's public ground so it seems odd. ps they said this is a $900+ ticket, which seems wild and a bit of a cash grab.

-I'll paint a scenario. You're sitting in your deer blind during rifle season. You just shot your buck and tagged out but it's midday and you don't want to disturb the woods and head back to camp early. You decide to sit back in the same deer blind with your loaded rifle and see if any coyotes come to the smell of your fresh gut pile or whatever, because you have a legal tag for them. Multiple different officers have told me this would be very likely to get you a ticket for deer hunting with no license simply because you're sitting in your deer blind with your deer rifle and you look like you're a deer hunter, regardless of the legal tag in your pocket for coyote. To me, you're a legal hunter, but even at the base of it you're just out in the woods with your weapon and i cant see how that can be made illegal, even if you weren't actively hunting.

Just to be clear, I have nothing but respect for Mr. Green Jeans and the job they do! I realize this may be a polarizing conversation so i hope we can keep it on track and in good spirits and I'd love to hear opinions on it

Used to be illegal here in NV to carry any firearm (including handgun) while actively archery hunting. They must've seen how ridiculous this was because it is changed now. I still carried mine at that time, I think there's a clear case to be made on some of these laws. Most wardens I've seen out get it. They don't make the rules, they often don't agree with them, and they usually only give warnings for the rules that are questionable in legality.

 

[MoeFaux]

I have always found this statement interesting.

Can a state pass and enforce a law prohibiting you from exercising your first ammendment rights? How about the fifth ammendment and due process?

How about the 6th or 7th ammendment? Can States take those rights away?

It seems the 2nd ammendment is the only one that people are OK with taking the right away?

A few points to make here:
1 - the first amendment, taken at face value, doesn't actually grant rights to citizens. Rather, it prohibits congress from enacting federal legislation that would limit certain rights or show preference to a particular religion. I don't think that's how it's applied in practice, but that's how the text reads.

2 - The second amendment is written very poorly and is open to myriad interpretations, thus a lot of laws can be passed that would seem contradictory to one interpretation but perfectly aligned with another. I'll give examples, and because I don't want this to become a heated debate, please be aware that I'm not posting any opinions here, only pointing out facts.
- The amendment doesn't properly define ARMS, therefore one could argue that a ban on handguns isn't a violation of 2A because it didn't ban swords and slingshots. If ARMS is be interpreted as all arms without limitation, then any private citizen should be free to purchase an M1A1 tank or a shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missile, which would be problematic in its own way.
- The amendment spends half of its verbiage talking about a well-regulated militia, but is very confusing in terms of punctuation and grammar about how that relates the second half of the verbiage. (Again, this is not my opinion, but rather an interesting point of decades-long debate among legal scholars and historians.) One could argue that the intention was for militia members to have the right to bear arms, but not necessarily everybody else.
- The amendment grants the right to THE PEOPLE collectively, not necessarily to citizens as individuals, thus one could argue that any law preventing SOME people from owning arms (convicted felons, for instance) does not infringe upon the right of THE PEOPLE as a whole.

The short answer to your question, @2buffalo, is that 2A rights aren't necessarily being taken away. Rather, some of those rights may not have existed in the first place because 2A doesn't necessarily grant us all the rights we would like to believe.

 

[displacedtexan]

I'm not what you'd call a supporter of law enforcement...

But as far as film

Yes. But I’m not sure I agree or disagree with the ability to inspect private property with loose probable cause.

LEO cant just pull you over because you are driving with out an infraction/probable cause, the same should apply to hunting.

You say that...

But they can and do.

I've been pulled over numerous times for probable cause.

Including more than once where they actually told me that's why. I once dropped my dad off at like 3am, got pulled over because they were looking for meth. Leaving Mount Rushmore "with plates from a state with legal Marijuana"...

 

[cuerro viejo]

I'm not what you'd call a supporter of law enforcement...

But as far as film

You say that...

But they can and do.

I've been pulled over numerous times for probable cause.

Including more than once where they actually told me that's why. I once dropped my dad off at like 3am, got pulled over because they were looking for meth. Leaving Mount Rushmore "with plates from a state with legal Marijuana"...

Yes, I’m sure but with out legitimate probable its a slippery slope with major recourse as it’s basically profiling, not to mention the potential for loss of case for anything discovered. GW’s don’t have the same issue of recourse, as 4th amendment is limited or minimally applied

 

[mt terry d]

I don’t disagree with the sentiment, but I see at a different level. It’s just not that simple.

There is absolutely no way to avoid this if we live in a society governed by laws. It’s always been this way. If by currently you meant by our earliest state and federal constitutions then we can agree.

But, yes, under the regulatory state we are all violating some law.

It’s why the jury has the right to nullify the law and the state can not convict with double jeopardy. Go back to the founding and you’ll find it.

Even our founding fathers disagreed and left ways for the people to try to stay ahead of government.

It is magical thinking that the Constitution was ever able to control govt. From the beginning the Marbury vs. Madison case and politics surrounding it set the table.

“A republic if you can keep it.”

Jefferson said liberty would require frequent revolutions.

The people are the problem. Government is just the word for stuff we do together.

Vote like your life depends on it, cause it does.

Residential wet blanket out….

Other than the voting part I agree. Name one period of say 20 years throughout all
of American history where the people were granted the ability to practice more of
their God-given rights than less. ( Rhetorical question that would really run this thread in the ditch)

Since Lincoln showed states what the Federales would do to them if they tried to leave this
(ironically named) "voluntary union" it's the only tool the people have against the government's
and the majority's tyranny.
That's why attorneys and judges are forbidden to inform jurors of Jury Nullification.

 

[M44]

Another sidenote to break the tension. Told to me by one of the men involved.

Occured in a region of my county that was very remote. Think hillbilly environment and I would know because I am one. It was deer season and bucks only.

Wardens from a different county would switch places with the local one in an attempt to hide their identity. They would dress in plain clothes and drive the back roads in an old beat up car trying to find offenders of the king's deer. The operation was referred to as saturation. Most generally there were two to a car.

The two wardens were driving down the road when they observed a man dragging a doe towards the fence. Dollar signs were flashing when they stopped and approached the man. Before the wardens could say a thing, the man asked for help getting the deer through the fence. They obliged. He thanked them and said he had another one just like this one down over the hill. He asked if they would help him get it through the fence too. Seeing more dollar signs, the wardens agreed. The man dropped down below the hill and never returned. I guess that dumb hillbilly smelled a rat .

 

[displacedtexan]

Yes, I’m sure but with out legitimate probable its a slippery slope with major recourse as it’s basically profiling, not to mention the potential for loss of case for anything discovered. GW’s don’t have the same issue of recourse, as 4th amendment is limited or minimally applied

It's absolutely profiling, and it definitely happens.

 

[Yoder]

They typically violate illegal search and seizure laws. Any checkpoints are a violation. Same as DUI checkpoints. They shouldn't be able to pull you over without cause.

 

[AdvntrSeekr]

No one has probably ever pushed it too hard and it hasn't went all the way up the courts. It seems as though often the game wardens make it up as they go along, and go based off of their own interpretations, not hard facts. Nowadays it's the kings land, the kings deer, and the kings rules, but we just call it the government....