Do fish and game laws supersede constitutional rights?

[wapitibob]

Used to be a notation on our Oregon license that signing was agreeing to follow regulations, which include stopping at checkpoints as well as producing a license when asked by any law enforcement.

 

[ClearCreek]

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....

Can you explain what you mean in the bolded and underlined sentence?

Are you saying that when a game warden writes a citation for a violation they are just making up the violation?


ClearCreek

 

[mt terry d]

No. The right to bear arms protects your right to own and use firearms at the federal level. It does NOT grant you the right to carry any weapon any time any where.

State and local governments are free to put restrictions on firearm use. So, when Michigan says you can't have a loaded rifle after dark on public land during hunting season - that is the law of the land and is not in conflict with your rights. If you were on private property, you may be able to argue that the state can't tell you when or how to carry your rifle BUT that argument could quickly be defeated by the fact that you have a hunting license in your pocket, and hunting is an activity that the state regulates regardless of where you.

Each state regulates voting, too.
If a state decides only white male property owners vote, that's okay, right?

 

[NMJM]

Part of the reason these laws are considered constitutional is they are rarely challenged. The vast majority of game violations are misdemeanors. To challenge the constitutionality of a law is a long and very expensive process. Look at the corner crossing case. Look how long that took and look at the total cost. Luckily the defendants had help with legal bills or it probably would not have gone as far as it did.

 

[Fujicon]

Blathering opinions here are perhaps interesting to read, but the only definitive answer will come through the courts. That requires someone to put their money where their offended sensibilities are. If that hasn't happened yet, and apparently it hasn't in many of the situations cited above, then by definition the actual sense of governmental offense is rather low-level at best.

 

[mtwarden]

Blathering opinions here

Indeed


I want to know what we're going to do with traffic laws that supersede constitutional rights? I can't drive 55

 

[WCB]

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. Probable cause IMO is shooting after LST, fourth report during migratory season, an odd spent shot gun case(think lead) on ground during Migratory etc, 7 ducks birds in one pile, animal hanging… etc

I have no issue with license request, on public or public easement when in procession or transporting game, but walking up to a rural house/camp and asking for it, doesn’t exactly really follow the law of probable cause.

I was mowing on riding lawn mower at private property camp and got asked for my hunting license. No issue abiding but that’s pretty loose definition of “ probable cause”

We had a Federal Warden and State Warden in ND nock on our "hunting shack" door. And ask if we could show them our licenses and any birds we killed. Of course we had the garage open, and a decoy boat still loaded from the morning, a few Sharptail laying on the duck...you know typical hunting camp stuff. We were obviously good and didn't really care about the encounter. (state warden was a complete asshat though).


But they had to drive 1 mile off the main gravel road up our dead end "driveway" technically still county rd since we pay taxes and have a "inhabited dwelling". enter our 'private road' still about 200yrds from the house, barn, garage, etc. Which are obstructed buy elevation gain to the farm yard and a large tree grove. Until you are 100yds or so onto our private road, go between two slough and hang a 90 degree turn you can't even see buildings. Not sure how that passes the test on legality. They did not see us come and go and would have no idea if anybody was there or not.

Again I care but not really in the sense that they can waste all the time they want. I'm not hiding anything.

 

[mt terry d]

Blathering opinions here are perhaps interesting to read, but the only definitive answer will come through the courts. That requires someone to put their money where their offended sensibilities are. If that hasn't happened yet, and apparently it hasn't in many of the situations cited above, then by definition the actual sense of governmental offense is rather low-level at best.

You mean a court devised by the Government with government judges and government prosecutors and government employees trained by the government testifying against a non-governmental employee who is the ONLY one there who has any risk or "skin in the game" ? That court?

Sounds like a fair system to me.

 

[IW17]

You mean a court devised by the Government with government judges and government prosecutors and government employees trained by the government testifying against a non-governmental employee who is the ONLY one there who has any risk or "skin in the game" ? That court?

Sounds like a fair system to me.

 

[cuerro viejo]

We had a Federal Warden and State Warden in ND nock on our "hunting shack" door. And ask if we could show them our licenses and any birds we killed. Of course we had the garage open, and a decoy boat still loaded from the morning, a few Sharptail laying on the duck...you know typical hunting camp stuff. We were obviously good and didn't really care about the encounter. (state warden was a complete asshat though).


But they had to drive 1 mile off the main gravel road up our dead end "driveway" technically still county rd since we pay taxes and have a "inhabited dwelling". enter our 'private road' still about 200yrds from the house, barn, garage, etc. Which are obstructed buy elevation gain to the farm yard and a large tree grove. Until you are 100yds or so onto our private road, go between two slough and hang a 90 degree turn you can't even see buildings. Not sure how that passes the test on legality. They did not see us come and go and would have no idea if anybody was there or not.

Again I care but not really in the sense that they can waste all the time they want. I'm not hiding anything.

Similar here, this is actually a ranch house built in the 20's, It more a recreational 2nd home now. We had nothing hanging. In fact just got there, He had to, trip the electric gate, drive down private drive way and throw the ranch for over a mile, which nothing can be seen from hwy, I was same way, handed him my license's and went back to mowing, but more I thought about it more I was like really?? Nothing to hide but seems to be pushing his directive little. Regardless wasnt a bad interaction has he normally checks us every year, and is in and out

 

[mt terry d]

On horseback I met a couple wardens on a trail in the backcountry, also mounted.
Stopped to chat as one does.
They asked to see my fishing license.
I said "I'm not fishing" and rode on.
( Yes, I had a fishing license).

 

[average]

As already mentioned your signature on the license probably signs your rights away to some extent. Game laws being based on prima facie is another justification I've seen.

 

[UKwildcatfan]

As far as sitting in a blind after you’ve tagged out with the intent to shoot some other animal that’s legal. It’s not illegal unless you do something illegal, IE shoot another deer you don’t have a tag for. Many places have concurrent seasons for different game animals and common sense would tell you that you can hunt one after you’ve finished hunting the other.

Unfortunately, if your local warden is the type to write tickets just because you’re probably going to get a ticket. Good news is that if you press the issue and take it to court it’ll be thrown out if you have a decent attorney and a judge who isn’t a meathead. But it’s going to cost you and the state time and money.

Semi related example. My family owns a place where there’s a dispute over easement access. It clearly belongs to us but due to different entities being involved, IE F&G, BIA, county sheriff department, nobody wants to deal with the issue. The game warden has stated that without a doubt he will write me a ticket for trespassing with no questions asked. The county judge has countered by stating that he will tear up the ticket every time I bring one into his court. Trouble is that I have to go through the hassle of appearing at the courthouse and all the mechanics of that. I’m sure a decent lawyer could take it to court and get it cleared up permanently pretty easily, but it’ll cost me $5k.

You sometimes find that you are either at the mercy of law enforcement or your pocketbook in situations like you describe.

An easement should indicated on a deed. Correct? If there was a handshake with a previous owner. I'd think you're SOL.

 

[Dioni A]

I could be off but if I remember correctly in the state of Idaho, hunting is considered a privilege and to participate you agree to many things that could otherwise seem like a violation of your rights. That's part of why you sign your license.
It gives fish and game authority they otherwise wouldn't normally have over regular citizens.

 

[Slickhill]

Oh there’s an easement on a deed. As well as multiple state surveys.

But there’s indian land involved and the head land man at the BIA says, and I quote “we don’t recognize the authority of your deed”. They’re federal and everything is or should be state as pertinent to this case. But both the sheriff’s department and the department of fish and game have reciprocal agreements with the BIA so they pretty much do as they please unless you slap their peepee in state court. Don’t under any circumstance take up your case against them in federal court or you’re screwed before you start.

 

[AdvntrSeekr]

Can you explain what you mean in the bolded and underlined sentence?

Are you saying that when a game warden writes a citation for a violation they are just making up the violation?


ClearCreek

I have heard and seen instances where they take something that is ambiguous and will either write a citation based on their interpretation, or give out guidance that is their interpretation of a rule, but yet talk to a different game warden and you’ll get a completely different take on it.

 

[mtwarden]

I knew a bloke, that knew a bloke whose wife was getting food in the freezer and got scared to death because a game warden was hiding in it.

 

[z987k]

No. The right to bear arms protects your right to own and use firearms at the federal level. It does NOT grant you the right to carry any weapon any time any where.

State and local governments are free to put restrictions on firearm use. So, when Michigan says you can't have a loaded rifle after dark on public land during hunting season - that is the law of the land and is not in conflict with your rights. If you were on private property, you may be able to argue that the state can't tell you when or how to carry your rifle BUT that argument could quickly be defeated by the fact that you have a hunting license in your pocket, and hunting is an activity that the state regulates regardless of where you.

This is a take that nobody in my circle has ever really mentioned. Good point, thanks for this!

That's because he's completely wrong. Both the supremacy clause(article 6) and the equal protection clause (section 1) of the 14th amendment applies the entire constitution to the states as well. The states are not allowed to violate anything in the federal constitution.
There's 140 years of jurisprudence on that and it's not remotely debated at this point.

 

[z987k]

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"...

If one were inclined and had actual proof of that and especially them saying that. Like a video. One would end up with a very nice payday. It's illegal, the courts have said it's illegal. If they don't know they're breaking the law by doing that, well ignorance is no excuse. All you can do is make them pay. Unfortunately most places indemnify their officers, which means they operate without consequences for breaking the law. Much unlike the subjects.

 

[ClearCreek]

I have heard and seen instances where they take something that is ambiguous and will either write a citation based on their interpretation, or give out guidance that is their interpretation of a rule, but yet talk to a different game warden and you’ll get a completely different take on it.

Can you tell us the specifics of a couple of those instances? Especially the "completely different take on it".

ClearCreek