Does the DNR still have the right to search your boat?

[NicBarratt]

What kind of privacy is there in a fishing boat? guys hang there stuff over the edge and take a leak in the middle of 10+ boats. I agree with many of the others, The DNR is there to protect our resources and us. The vast Majority of Sportsman are honest and follow the rules but there is no way for them to be able to tell who that is in a group of boats. Random checks are essential to keep our fisheries as great as they are. If you don't want to be "bothered" then go to a small lake with poor fishing and you will probably not be bothered. I have never had a DNR boat come screaming up to me and scare away the fish. Most of the CO's love fishing as much as us and understand the respect that others want while we are fishing. Let them do their job so you can get back to fishing! I am 100% in favor of random checks and support the DNR in what they are doing. Last but not least, CO's are liscenced police officers and I am sure they have a better understanding of what is legal and what is not legal than the average Joe fisherman.

[Harmonica Bear]

Nice post! Very good points and well stated.

[eelpout1]

Nice post by both Buzzin and NicBarratt, Imagine the scenario if the co's quit doing thier job. guys shovin fish in the box as fast as the can (there are guys that will do it)you'd be on line posting aboutlast weekend on the big pond bragging about the 2-9"s you got last weekend, I'm glad somebody is willing to do that job. I have the utmost respect for them, with all the knuckleheads on the water you couldnt pay me enough to do that job, they can board my rig any time!!!

[nofishfisherman]

If a CO should need "reasonable articulable suspicion" (RAS) then how could they ever check for a fishing license? They wouldn't be allowed to stop at 99% of boats beucase they can't see anything that would give them RAS but that doesn't mean the guys are fishing legally.

If CO's needed RAS then we would no longer need a license to fish because no one would be allowed to check, and we could all keep as many fish as we want becuase no one could check.

That should really help the fishery in the state. Who wants to be the first to bring that one up to law makers?

[buzzin for bass]

NoFish, I must respectfully disagree. The courts and law enforcement have found a way to make that concept (PC or RAS) work in a myriad of other law enforcement scenarios, so I see no reason why a balance could not be struck in the area of fish and game regulation. Maybe one thing to think about, that is probably not common knowledge, is that RAS is a rediculously low standard and probably does not provide quite the barrier that you may be envisioning.

A law enforcement officer cannot pull me over in my car just to see if I have a driver's license and nothing stated thus far has shown me that fishing is that much different. Regardless of law enforcements ability to do random checks people still drive and fish without the proper licenses.

Again, personally I'm just as happy answering a COs questions and being on my way, I just don't see what makes their particular role in law enforcement that different than any other. As has been stated above, many COs enjoy the sport as much as I do and often if one complies with requests the COs have much to offer in the way of what is the current hot bite, after all they spend everyday on the water.

[nofishfisherman]

What do you propose then?

How shoudl CO's enforce the law if they can't check? I think its easier for a cop to find RAS for someone who is driving then it would be for someone sitting in their boat bobber fishing. What could someone be doing while simply sitting in a boat that would warrant RAS?

Could the simple act of refusing to show the CO the fish you caught be enough to give them probable cause? Seems like it should be. But the problem is that they would still need probable cause to approach you in the first place.

Ultimately I don't think anyones civil liberties are being threatened here so I am not to worried about it. They CO's are just doing their job.

[buzzin for bass]

Without taking the time to think through every possible consequence my first reaction would be to simply apply the same laws in the same way. RAS tests and PC tests are a continual balancing act where one must ask whether or not sufficient cause exists for each new action taken.

I could see the arguement that simply observing a person fishing from their boat would constitute sufficent RAS to approach and inquire as to whether or not they had a fishing license, but nothing more absent additional facts. The argument could go, the intrusion of asking a person sitting in their boat and fishing if they have a fishing license is minimally intrusive (i.e. it is much less of a hassel to simply yell from one boat to the other if you have a license than to pull over a car in the middle of the freeway, which forces the driver to stop what they are doing.) but is comparable to the COs interest of determining whether or not the person has a license based on the minimal level of suspcion of wrongdoing. Under that secnario, the CO could not ask a boater (someone just out tooling around) if they had a fishing license, no reason cause they are not fishing. Along those lines, the next level of intrusion may be to ask to see inside ones livewells, which could be satisfied as I stated before based upon simply watching the person catch a fish that appears to the CO to be in violation of the slot and throw it in their livewell, or even simply by noting an evasive response to the question of having a fishing license.

As can be seen, the CO still has a lot of discretion, i.e. what they determine looks like a violation of the slot or what is an evasive response, but they would still need at least SOME reason to cause that low level of interference. In all reality, I'm guessing that what I'm suggesting probably happens at at least some level in the mind of most COs before each stop anyway.

I just don't want to jump too quickly on the band wagon of separating COs from other law enforcement activities. If we do, then are we saying the COs have more discretion than police officers or are we saying that fish and game regulations are subject to different standards than other laws? The answer has very serious consequences. If the former, then a CO, at the bequest of the police, would be allowed to search your house for drugs without a warrant and then give info to the police; if the latter then a CO could do the search but only for fishing violations, i.e. if they find illicit drugs in your boat they would have no power to do anything (becuase they violated your constitutional rights to RAS/PC) but help you on your way and ask if you needed a light. I agree that I don't think what's going on is necessarily a huge infringement on my civil liberties, but I just don't see the need for a difference between police and COs.

[nofishfisherman]

Just to throw another scenario into this mess.

When I was visiting South Padre Island in Texas we were driving up to Corpus Christi, somewhere outside of South Padre all the cars were stopped and asked questions about anything from fruits and vegetables to have we been drinking. Now it was during spring break and I am sure the cops were trying to crack down on drunk drivers but they had no probable cause to stop every car on the road but they did and then they proceed to ask for licenses and such. Now how is that different from a CO stopping at each boat to check licenses and fish catch?

[NEANGLER]

I know here in NE they were doing the road block thing for awhile and someone brought a lawsuit to the table saying that the road blocks were illegal since they were checking people for no violations/ probale cause. Soon after the road blocks stopped.

Once you throw your line in the water or fire a firearm at game then you have given them the right to check you since you need a license to do those things. I do think however there are good CO's and Bad CO's. 2 years ago on opener I had a CO drive right by another boat who did not have his nav lights on at dusk to drive over to my boat and ask "who's the guy from Nebraska?" He proceeds to have me show him everything in the boat, licenses live well, coolers etc. and was not too hospitestalble about it. Best thing to do is do what they ask, make some samll talk and he may even give you some tips or spots to try. Police and CO's have a tough job and if you are not a D*** about it, it helps the next guy and the next guy so they are no in a foul mood.

[eye warrior]

I think the bottom line is, just answer his questions and he'll be on his way, maybe 2 minutes tops. Another twist, sobriety checks. Randomly pulling over drivers for alcohol checks. I understand why, but an intrusion? I think this subject could be debated for years to come. Unfortionatly I got to get to the cabin on the pond, hopefully the wheather holds out.

[archer59]

Quote:

---

I just don't want to jump too quickly on the band wagon of separating COs from other law enforcement activities. If we do, then are we saying the COs have more discretion than police officers or are we saying that fish and game regulations are subject to different standards than other laws? The answer has very serious consequences. If the former, then a CO, at the bequest of the police, would be allowed to search your house for drugs without a warrant and then give info to the police; if the latter then a CO could do the search but only for fishing violations, i.e. if they find illicit drugs in your boat they would have no power to do anything (becuase they violated your constitutional rights to RAS/PC) but help you on your way and ask if you needed a light. I agree that I don't think what's going on is necessarily a huge infringement on my civil liberties, but I just don't see the need for a difference between police and COs.

---

CO's are protecting 'our' resources. Fish and game belong to all of us. I have seen people with 100 sunnies in their five gallon pail. Doesn't take long for this type of behavior to have a negative affect on a fishery. I want the CO's to check folks. I'd like my grandkids to be able to fish and hunt as I have ... and am still.

My .02

Nick

[alex1]

Nicely put, I live in Alexandria and I wish we had more CO's. Over the opener we had people openly saying that tehy know of people taking over their limits of eye's because they were biting so well. Then you have people that were saying they didn't do anything about their buddies taking over their possesion limits because it wasn't their place. If people are just allowed to take over the limits because the next time they are out the fish may not be biting or they can't get anything below the protected size fishing will go to heck in a hand basket. I wish there were laws to give fines to people who knew about illegal fish and didn't say anything to a CO. I've heard peo[ple argue the point that why can't they take an extra fish when they are biting good, theDNR can always stock more walleyes. What part of this make sense, YOu have to stock 3 times as many fry to make fish of keepable size because of the mortality rate on fry and fingerlings. Where do people think the money also comes from to stock those fish. Some of the people taking over their limits and illegal slot fish are the same ones complainign that their licenses keep going up. Let the CO's do their jobs and quit complaining about them!

[buzzin for bass]

Archer and Axel, it appears that in most respects I agree with both of you. I don't seem to be able to convey my point properly as both the situations you two described would not be affected by applying the same rules to COs as are applied to police. I have yet to be convinced that fish (COs) are more important than lives (police).

Archer, in your example you saw the overlimit of sunnies. That observation would likely be sufficient to justify a search. Axel, statements by individuals that others are committing a crime is very often used to justify searches, i.e. a confidential informant/snitch. Finally, Axel, I don't know who you hang out with, but if someone told me about overlimits I'd make the call to TIP and believe that you should too, in addition to attempting (whether successful or not) to educate the individual that the TIP line is established for procisely that purpose. Even if you didn't witness it first hand, maybe the call would be enough to get a CO to come check out the body of water in question or give a call to the person who told you about it for a followup investigation.

I guess one way to look at it would be to think of it this way, a CO can search my boat a hundred times and I won't care, I'll simply smile and comply every time. But every time the CO checks me they will find that I'm following the rules and regs. However, if they searched based upon observation of actions that may lead them to catching someone who is actually in violation. As stated before, I do believe that most COs already do base their stops on at least some level of observation, especially before doing such things as actually going through one's live wells.

I can say that in the dozen or so times I have been stopped it is rarely more than the question of do you have a license (several times I was not even required to pull it out of my wallet, just answer the question), and has never been more than a request to show them the proper number of life jackets, never been boarded or asked to show fish/livewells. I'm guessing the consistant low level of intrusion has more to do with the observation by COs as they approach me that I simply put back what I catch rather than some happenstance that I only run into happy-go-lucky COs.

[alex1]

It's not the people I hangout with, although I have turned in a friend and would do it again in a heartbeat. These were people in general public, ie. at the restraunt talking about their success over coffee. There was another instance on this web site for the Alexandria area report where someone said they new of it happening and did nothing about it. What I'm trying to say is this. If a CO needs to get a warrent to check your boat when you're on the lake because you won't let them check for illegal fish we might as well do away with all the rules and laws, and have it be a free for all. Then wait and see who's complaining because there are no fish.

[archer59]

Buzz I can also see your point of view. Should the CO's have more authority than police? That's a good question, and currently they do. One must remember, and I hate to say this.... everything in life revolves around the almighy dollar. Fishing, hunting, camping, boating, you name it, is big business. And rightly so, many folks depend on these activity as their livelyhood as does the state to support different funds. ( don't get me started on this one ) So do the CO's protect our resources and in turn the financial side of our outdoor activities? Just food for thought.

I was on the St. Croix Wednesday morning and was checked not more that 15 minutes after getting under way. A safety check. Not a problem.

OK I babbled enough. This could be an interesting discussion around the campfire.

Nick