Whitewater Area

[Gilgamesh]

Anyone catching any around the whitewater/elba area? Is it worth driving down sometime this week for some trout? It is catch and release correct?

[itchmesir]

I'm pretty sure people are catching trout there.. personally i never go that way... i recently heard a crazy story about some newbie maverick DNR officer

[Redbeard5289]

Hey itchmesir

Can i get you to elaborate on the crazy story you heard...

The boys and I are planning on heading down that way this weekend for opener and we are always looking for good stories to tell around the campfire...

thanks

Redbeard

[itchmesir]

guy was like 2mi downstream in the thick of it and away from everything.. along comes this DNR officer.. asks for his license.. then asks for his ID and then searched him completely.. found "non-fishing related stuff".. and got ticketed big time

[mille lacs muskie bum]

what are the regs for the middle fork in the state park?

[itchmesir]

artificial and fly only

[dkhntr]

I believe that artificial only is outside of state park boundaries. You can kill a worm inside the park.

[mweb_21]

Are you sure about that? I thought that inside of the state park you were limited to artificial lures and flies only...

On a side note, how are the whitewater streams doing? I have not fished WW since the flooding a couple years ago. I heard there was quite a lot of damage and have been focusing elsewhere recently.

[Redbeard5289]

itchmesir,

Thanks for the story... Sure the guys would like to hear that one around the ol' campfire this weekend.

Just got done checking the DNR site and they got updated trout stream maps available online...

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fishing/trout_streams/index.html

Don't have my 2007 map book on hand to compare but it looks like the majority of the WW state park is under normal regulations except for the west side, there it is catch and release status.

Curious what time of year did the guy get busted and what "non-fishing related stuff" did he have on him?

Redbeard

[mark p]

There is a portion of the middle branch inside the park that is catch & release and artificials only, but the majority of that stream within the park allows live bait and you can keep the 'normal' limit. I'm pretty sure the special regulations start upstream from the group camp.

[delcecchi]

He needs a lawyer. Sounds like bad search.

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/clss4th.htm

What probable cause did the CO have?

[itchmesir]

from how the story went there was no probable cause.. but we all know how stories can go.. but im pretty sure if the story was told to me how it was.. it actually went that way

[itchmesir]

itchmesir,

Thanks for the story... Sure the guys would like to hear that one around the ol' campfire this weekend.

Just got done checking the DNR site and they got updated trout stream maps available online...

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fishing/trout_streams/index.html

Don't have my 2007 map book on hand to compare but it looks like the majority of the WW state park is under normal regulations except for the west side, there it is catch and release status.

Curious what time of year did the guy get busted and what "non-fishing related stuff" did he have on him?

Redbeard

The Colonel's special "herbs and spices"

[MinDak Hunter]

Itchmesir- I'm not sure what you mean by this, "newbie maverick DNR officer". Is it that he was walking the stream 2 miles "in the thick of it" to check a guy? Or is that he cited the guy for "non-fishing related stuff"? Either way it sounds like he was doing his job.

As for being a "newbie" I'm pretty sure the newest officer down there has been in the area at least two years (plus he had been a State Trooper for 18-20 years first). Plus the term "mavrick" can have some negitive connotations when speaking/writting about law enforcement.

I guess I'm not sure what was the meaning of your post.

[JIvers]

guy was like 2mi downstream in the thick of it and away from everything.. along comes this DNR officer.. asks for his license.. then asks for his ID and then searched him completely.. found "non-fishing related stuff".. and got ticketed big time

I don't see how a DNR officer being on the river and checking licenses in out-of-the-way spots makes him a "maverick".

As for the search and ID check, the CO could have (note that I said "could have") had reason to think the individual in question was concealing non-legal fish. I've had COs ask to look in my beverage cooler in my boat a couple times, and I wasn't doing anything illegal.

Or, something on the ID or license may (note that I said "may") not have been right, giving the CO reason to check this individual out more thoroughly.

Who knows, said individual may have picked a really bad time to burn one, if the "non-fishing related stuff" was a controlled substance of some sort, and the CO happened to smell it. Too bad for the guy if something like that happened, but COs are law enforcement officers.

I'd want to hear the CO's side before I brand him a maverick and loose cannon.

[delcecchi]

concealing non legal fish still requires probable cause for a search. What is it about the Constitution that some folks have trouble understanding.

Of course if he gave permission out of ignorance that is different. Eventually someone will challenge like the barging into fish house policy and it will go away.

Guy needs a lawyer. "this will go down on your permenant record"

[JIvers]

concealing non legal fish still requires probable cause for a search. What is it about the Constitution that some folks have trouble understanding.

The CO in question may have had probable cause to search the person in question--as I noted, I would want to hear the CO's side of things before branding him a loose cannon.

The Constitution does not grant immunity from crimes committed, nor does it prevent law officers from upholding the law. I could sit here all night and type hypothetical scenarios giving a CO probable cause to search a person in the course of their duties.

[delcecchi]

Of course the CO may have had probable cause. Or he may have gotten away without probable cause because the searchee didn't know that they could refuse. Or perhaps the evidence will be thrown out in court.

It would be interesting to know the true story and see what happens. Remember CO's used to bust into fishhouses all the time without probable cause or a warrant until now they can't.

Remember you don't have to answer questions or consent to a search. You probably do have to show an ID if requested. Ask for a lawyer, especially if you have reason to.

[itchmesir]

Of course the CO may have had probable cause. Or he may have gotten away without probable cause because the searchee didn't know that they could refuse. Or perhaps the evidence will be thrown out in court.

It would be interesting to know the true story and see what happens. Remember CO's used to bust into fishhouses all the time without probable cause or a warrant until now they can't.

Remember you don't have to answer questions or consent to a search. You probably do have to show an ID if requested. Ask for a lawyer, especially if you have reason to.

obviously an id must be presented since there is no picture on the fishing license itself.. though it would be great if they did.. because then you could just carry that and not have to worry about carrying a wallet or ID that you may lose