Boat Searches

[Guest]

Well, this debate over the our personal beliefs as to how far a CO should be able to go for searching has turned into a political BS arena. Arguing politics on this FISHING website has as about as much room as arguing religion. Go the the local watering hole and make your speaches there. I'm not interested.

It was a good debate until now. Now, I'm out of it. Get back to the basics of the post. If your views are that strong, then go to capital hill and demonstrate.

------------------
Let 'em go so they can grow!!!

[scifisher]

I don't think that I've seen more fallacious logic then when I'm reading HM and MM posts. A good example of this is the response given by MM. What he used against me, is something called "the slippery slope fallacy." By saying that I want to "tax the rich out of existance" is a complete misrepresentation of my position and absolutely not what I said at all.

Another example from MM is something called ad hominim, which means, to the man. So, according to MM, because I'm a teacher that means that I don't have a worthy opinion. (I guess the fact that I have a BS in Biology and Geology, a BA in Chem and a minor in physics and creative writing doesn't mean much in MM's world. Rightfully it shouldn't because if I played those cards, I would be making an "argument from authority" which would be fallacious on my part)

I don't mean to say this to be mean, but to think my opinions are extreme is, in itself, fallacious, except if you use fallacious logic to judge them. MM, I'm not jealous. I believe in fairness. HM, I may not be an accountant, but I do know how to read and I have done a fair amount of that and I do know that there is no way that you can tell me that I pay the same tax rate as a millionaire without a magic wand. I think we need a smaller system with few rules and no exceptions. When that happens, I'll stop talking about it. Extreme?

If yes, then you need to take off the elephant colored glasses and wake up to reality. It's not pretty and the more you accept other people's views at face value without examining the evidence, the worse its going to get. I have a great idea. If you both need a seat in my classroom so I can teach you how to logically and scientifically express yourselves, we might be able to make arrangements. For a price...how is that for capitolism!

Anyway, think about this. More fisherman = more COs. Budget cuts = less COs and more poaching. Less COs = rights lost to help enforcement of laws. So, cuts = loss of rights. How much is our freedom worth?

Scifisher

[scifisher]

Big G

Thanks for the big kick in the butt. I'll lay off the political stuff (although there is a link!) I apologize for offending MM and HM and for any rhetorical implications thereof.

I would feel better if this were on the debate board. No need to tire anyone with my logic just because they want to fish.

And alas, the 4th amendment. I believe our rights are important and that we need to do everything in our power to protect them. I also believe that enforcement of the laws is important and we need to do that too. How to do both is the real question? Does privacy and catching poachers need to be diametricaly opposed?

[mistermom]

My apologies to all..... I just went back and reviewed the topic and now I'm in the same boat as Blackstarluver. I am speechlesa at the audacity and the arrogance and I don't care how far off topic this is: I hope to God you're sticking with science in the classroom. And since I can come and sit in your classroom I just might. In fact I would urge all parents to visit classrooms and see their childrens teachers in action. That is definetly an area that needs more involvement by everyone.

mm

[Fisher Dave]

All I know is .. I have stated how I feel about boat search's 3 or 4 pages ago(in this topic).. I have had people quote me in hatred for my insight .. oh well. I have nothing against them(search's) for good reason, and no reason to defend myself in explaining why(again)... and also I have no interest to get into the BS political debate so many have turned this topic into.

As for everyone screaming about losing some privacy .. I will be smiling in the future when post come up with people yelling about what happen's when refusing a search .. because of being harassed, possibly arrested, and likely a bad situation coming out of it likely involving search warrants, etc...

Personally, when the time comes for my boat to be searched.. I will greet the CO, be polite, have conversation, clear up any questions that come to mind, and thank them for doing their job.

[scifisher]

I agree. Parents come and see what your kids are learning. That kind of involvement would solve a lot of problems in our country. MM, I do stick to science, but science sticks to everything, so now what?

[scifisher]

Fisher Dave

I don't think we need to give up our 4th, if we all are vigilant. Until that time, though, what do we do? Smile and nod. Try not to get arrested and obey the law. When we can make a plan so this doesn't have to happen though, we need to jump on it.

[mistermom]

Hey Bill Nye the Science Guy!
I know what you mean. I keep trying to get out of this gracefully and yet the gravitational pull of the off topic planet sucks me back in and the inertia of responses make me continue...... SOMEBODY LOCK THIS TOPIC!!!!!!!

mm

Even further off-topic 800 posts. Cool.

[This message has been edited by mistermom (edited 09-30-2003).]

[upnorth]

I for one don't think this topic shouldn't be locked. A little controversy never hurt anyone

Topics like this brings out a lot of opinions that otherwise would never be brought out. So what if there are a few waves made and some people get a little put out. It makes the open minded people think a bit, and the ones that are little less open minded at least get exposed to different ideas. Debate... even a heated debate is a good thing.

If we need to pay a few dollars more for a license so the state can hire more COs so be it. The only problem is the state would probably waste most of figuring out who to hire and where to put them.

Ah yes politics, gotta love the difference of opinion It's great to live in a country where you can express your opinions openly, and live

[This message has been edited by upnorth (edited 09-30-2003).]

[This message has been edited by upnorth (edited 09-30-2003).]

[Guest]

In a nutshell, if you don't like it pick a different hobby! Buy a license, be ready to show an officer you'r livewell!!! We're not saying you guy's cheat but if you don't think other people do you're dreamin!! Duck hunting last fall I watched 3 truck's (and 3 boats, two to three guy's ea.) from Illinois come and go three times in one day fishing bluegills think they were just going in for a sandwich? Too bad the CO's coudn't check the're livewells. Believe me I called!!

[Guest]

By the way, it look's like most of you guy's do this at work. The weekend was pretty quiet. What's up with that?

[mistermom]

I'm doing this in between diaper changes, naps, and cookies. I'm also watching the kids too.

mm

[Blackstarluver]

As Sartre surmised the world is absurd! I have a thought, it's simple, follows the golden rule and if you don't like it well, you can't read my thoughts so there( you can infer if you'd like) If a CO comes up to your boat and you have nothing to hide INVITE THE CO TO SEARCH YOUR BOAT. By doing this you are extending a gesture of good will. This may be perceived as a little nutty ( okay really nutty ) but in the name of preserving our icthyological resources, it isn't a bad thing. It also empowers you to be the one who made the first move, thereby giving you a chance to expedite the meeting with the CO and allows you to go on your merry way quickly. Look at it as the old world salute, extending of open hand to show that you mean no harm and show respect. I am not saying, that you should say (using a dim wit accent) "Ya wanna search me" by no means! I am merely suggesting that this is a very diplomatic way of dealing with something we disprove of, Quid pro quo. OH BTW if you are a poacher, disregard the aformentioned.
Sorry this time I had to submit post.
God lyk!
JC

[This message has been edited by Blackstarluver (edited 10-01-2003).]

[Giant_Jackpot]

I was under the impression that we were talking about rulings on laws that already exist.

[huskminn]

Once again, the level-headedness of Spike douses the fire, reducing it to glowing embers of truth.

Although the two greatest factors affecting game populations are habitat and weather, poaching can have a significant effect, as well. Overfishing can hurt a lake and can also irreversably affect population genetics. Poaching of big game can do the same in some areas. Bird hunting is affected a little less.....grouse hunting even less so. But! That really isn't the point is it? A law is a law is a law.

Big G raises some very important points. Although I have called TIPS a few times and even given witness depositions, there have also been times when I've turned a blind eye. An old farmer from Iowa on Mille Lacs...so excited about the ONE walleye he and his wife caught...a nice 25" fish. I should have called someone, I suppose. Two guys on ATV's hunting grouse on a foot-traffic only trail....should have walked a 1/2 mile back to the parking area, written down plate numbers and called (they were long gone by the time I eventually returned).

If I practiced what I preached 100% of the time that would probably help CO's out. I suppose that most people who break minor game laws could also be breaking major laws, too.

Since were talking about putting more CO's in the field, it would be interesting to know what activities most often lead to arrest or citation. Is it surveillance, random checks, decoys, tips? That info would be key to coming up with a viable solution.

Spike is right. Protecting civil liberties and enforcing game laws need not be zero sum. We can do both.

And, SciFi, can you please, just this one time, try to take a situation for what it is without blaming The Evil Rich?

Mistermom, take a piece of advice from me...don't keep your money in the wine cellar! I used to do it and, after a few years, I lost millions to mold and mildew! Also, the cellar floor can be dirty and may soil your silk pajamas. After all, it's okay to be rich, but not FILTHY rich!

[Dan Wood]

Wow, this is starting to look like the political forum...

For what it's worth, I'm in favor of this change. I pay through licensing and donations to maintain and improve fisheries in Minnesota. I'm all for doing whatever needs to be done to catch poachers - they are taking money directly from our pockets as sportsmen.

[This message has been edited by Dan Wood (edited 09-30-2003).]

[uffdapete]

I fail to see the comparison of my boat, canoe, car, ice shelter, etc. with my house. The difference is my house is on private land and the rest usually are not if they are subject to a search.

Secondly, I DO mind paying more taxes and increased fees because I know, after working for the government at county, state and federal levels, that tax money is not spent wisely. If private business operated in the same manner that most government agencies operate they would be bankrupt and/or illegal.

I have been stopped several times by CO's in MN and Canada and most have been respectful. In fact I've usually learned something from them about the law or have been given a fishing tip or two!

[Giant_Jackpot]

Canitbeluck,

You make a great argument and I tend to agree with you on this. However, if I am asked to have my live well checked I am going to comply. Why, you may ask? Because my free time is too valuable to say no. If I said no I am sure I would be in for a long drawn out battle with the CO.

What I will do though is write to my state representatives and let them know I do not like the idea of being searched. They are the ones that can change the laws. I would encourage others to do so as well. If you have the time to be posting messages on this forum then you have time to send them an e-mail. And don’t forget to tell them to support the 3/16 dedicated funding too! I have heard directly from a representative that it does not take many letters or e-mails to make a difference.

[Walleye_GFA]

Sigh...

[Jarrod32]

I probably shouldn't get into this, but here goes….

A couple of points on the searches (the original topic). There are a couple of issues at play here. The first is the 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. In my home, I have an expectation of privacy. In my boat, or even my fishhouse, I do not. There is not even a lot of 'gray area' here. There is a significant difference - as far as expectation of privacy - if I am eating supper in my home or fishing on public waters in my boat. Very different.

The other issue that is at the heart of the matter is the CO's themselves. I have never had a bad experience with one. My brother is a law enforcement officer (not a CO), and the general attitude of law enforcement officers is that you will be treated the way you want to be treated. Blakstarluver kind of hit on this…if you are cooperative (sure, officer…no problem. Have a look in the livewell) and respectful, you will be treated in a like manner. If you are belligerent, sarcastic, etc ("you gonna keep looking until you find a violation?") that is how you will be treated.

Sure, there will be some exceptions. Maybe that is where the problem lies. A little more responsibility and courtesy on the part of the CO's overall would probably result in more cooperation from the general (fishing and hunting) public.

That's probably enough. And as a wild-a$$ supply-side economist, I'd better not even get into the ridiculous class-warfare, rich are evil argument. Though it is a discussion that I love to have - and have had many times - in the local taverns and pubs, I won't get into it here. Besides, class warfare has been discredited as a theory by the utter and dismal failure of the Soviet Union over a decade ago. It's an outdated argument.

[huskminn]

Fisher Dave,

Hey, if you think I quoted you in "hatred", I apologize....but, you are very mistaken. I did not intend for you to feel hated.

I almost always post with a because I enjoy public discourse and think it is vital to a society and system such as ours--a representative democracy. I think discussing issues like this force everyone (including myself) to examine our opinions.

It's always very easy to have an opinion...everyone's got one, right? However, it's not nearly as easy to validate an opinion with reason. That is why I try to push people to support their positions.

When you say something like: "Yes, it seems like a violation of privacy, but its neccessary and will benefit us all(except those violating the laws)" I absolutely shudder.....Hitler, Stalin and other fascist dictators have ruled millions with those very words.

Wait!! Please understand I am not likening you to Hitler or Stalin...I know you are nothing remotely of the sort. Those were just some mighty far reaching words you put forth!

Now.....back to the topic...

For those of you who support the ruling (by the way, the law isn't new in any way) I clearly understand where you are coming from. I struggle back and forth with this whole issue.

I've gone my whole life being accustomed to searches from CO's. I'm sure from here on out, I will always submit to a search. Mostly, a CO asks, "Mind if I take a peek in the livewell?" and I'll say, sure, no problem.

That's all fine and well. I never questioned it.....until this court case came about last year.

Perhaps this ruling will remain in a cocoon, not setting precedence for any other legal ruling in MN. That would be great...my worries would be alleviated and there would only be one unconstitutional game law on the books.

Anyone notice how many new gay rights related suits have been filed in Federal court since the Texas sodomy law was overturned? Anyone guess why?

Precedence...that's all I'm worried about.

[Giant_Jackpot]

Walleye_GFA,

Not sure how to respond except to day that if they did put that on my license I would still get one. I have nothing to hide. Don’t forget that they have set up roadblocks in order to catch drunk drivers.

We seem to be losing sight of the fact that these laws have been on the books for years. To me it is nothing to worry about. If you feel so strongly about changing the laws so they cannot do the searches we are talking about here, write to your representatives as I suggested earlier. Posting your opinions here will change nothing.

One common theme on this post has been that whatever the opinion is on the searches, everyone agrees that more COs would be a good idea. When you are writing to your reps, please include a statement that says you are for the 3/16 bill. As far as I know this is still alive in some form (I tried looking up the bill on the state web site so I could post the number but the link to the bills is down). This would dedicate 3/16 of one percent of the current sales tax to Minnesota natural resources. We need to have some type of permanent funding to do any good in the future. A good resource on how to contact your representative is the Minnesota Game and Fish Coalition (gameandfishcoalition.com). They have links that show you who your reps are and how to contact them.

[scifisher]

So, the fall of communism debunks the whole "theory of class warfare?" It would take more then a couple of beers before that made sense

Seriously though, the last post was correct. A common theme is increasing the amount of COs. Paying for them. Dedicating part of the sales tax would do it. So would raising fees for lisences.

Before we spend the money, how many do we need? Can we employ enough conservation officers so we don't have to have unwarrented searches? By the way, is there a reward for TIPs? How much? How about making a reward that is a VERY lucrative incentive to turning in poachers? Again, how to pay....

hmmm....

Another common theme....

scifisher

[Fisher Dave]

Wait a minute here .. I never said anything about UNREASONABLE search's.. lets not put words in my mouth, or assume that I feel that searching a boat was ever UNREASONABLE.

If someone is out there fishing, hunting, or anything else for the purpose of taking game(any action to take fish, birds, or mammals).. Their craft should be able to be searched for game at any time in a reasonable manor... looking in the livewell, coolers, etc... whatever a person would normally keep the fish in that craft. If the person was observed putting fish elsewhere with optics(an obvious suspect) a CO should be able to search the entire craft. A CO at an access to check fish in the livewell would not hurt my feeling either. All of these I would consider REASONABLE on most any circumstance..

UNREASONABLE and unacceptable to me would be *patting* a person down, searching a craft in an excessive and unorderly manor, and so on... or basicly abusing the power given to them in any way without good reason, or in an offensive manor.

I dont mind if a CO comes to my craft, looks in the livewell, checks my license, PFD's, legal equipment, etc .. they do their job and I watch them leave in 5 minutes and they go to the next craft. While duck hunting I have been checked many times and the CO will go through all ammo being sure its non toxic, check the plug in the gun, licenses, and on occasion, do a better search through equiment, decoy bags, blind material, etc to be sure I dont have too many birds .. It has never taken more than 10 minutes... this is ok with me and is protecting and preserving our hunting priviledge(sp?).

What is NOT ok with me while duck hunting is an episode I had a few years back when a CO approached me at 4:30 in the morning and searched all my equipment thourogly(sp?)and held me up for an hour before I could hit the water .. that was unreasonable, disrepectful, and uncalled for.

I dont want anyone to be *violated* for the act of fishing or anything else.. but in my eyes nobody is being violated for a CO to look in the livewell while your in the act of fishing. As for others blowing everything out of proportion with strip search's, etc ... only way anyone is going to deal with that is if they are breaking the law, and upset any enforcement individual and get themselves arrested.

huskminn... I know your comment wasnt directed at me as a person in any way, and no disrespect was taken. I understand you didnt agree with the statement, and respect it.

[Walleye_GFA]

How would you so willing to give away the right of fishing without unreasonable search, and those who want to "put a disclaimer on the lciense, dont like it dont fish..."

How will you feel when they put the same thing on a drivers license ???? Fishing is more of a right than driving isnt it ???

So, you dont like it dont drive... so if they want to pull you over for any reason they can search you at will...

Wow sounds bad then huh... well the COs are preserving our fish... well the LEO (law enforce officer) is saving lives by looking for drunks and drugs...

WHAT SAYETH YOU NOW ????

Wally

[196thDLR]

What is absolutely fantastic about this country we live in, is, we are able to have an opinion, and express that opinion without fear of repression from our government. So here is mine. The only thing about that bothers me about being required to allow someone to search all of my equipment and live wells, you are basically considered guilty of some infraction until you prove to the CO that you are innocent. Many times coming from the Ash River I have been subgected to a search of my coolers, boat storage areas and my vehicle. Why, you ask, because, I am pulling my boat. I am not engaged in any activity other than driving on a county road for which I pay taxes to drive on. I have broken NO driving law, but because I am pulling a boat, I am selected to be searched. That makes me very angry.

[Guest]

Who's responsibility is it to know the regulations protecting the resource?

[Guest]

196thDLr, So are they only supposed to stop the guilty ones? That might be tough. Light'n up or don't fish. Today I was daydreaming driving and a trooper gave me a warning for speeding. I didn't see him flash me coming from the opposite way and he said I was going faster after he caught up than when he originally saw me. A WARNING!! Nice guy!!!!

[196thDLR]

takekidsfishin: I hope you do what your username says. That is how this recreation of ours keeps getting better and better! However, your advice of lighten up or don't go seems a bit harsh. I don't think I'll follow it. I truely wish that I had a better idea for the CO's to catch the violators. I have always tried to follow all laws, whether or not I agree. The court has ruled, we will go back to the way the CO's operated 2 years ago. I have the RIGHT to be angry about it, I have fought for that RIGHT, putting my life on the line so that you, I, and all the citizens of this country can be angry if they want to.

Welcome Home ALL You Grunts Out There.

[Guest]

196thDLR, I can hardly remember the last time I fished, hunted, scouted, mushroom picked, or anything else involving lakes and fields w/out kids. Mine, their friends, other peoples, sometime's all of the above. I'm grateful that you've fought for our right's and freedom's. A CO's job is a thankless one. One I wouldn't want. His busiest day's are when we're having fun. Like I said just lighten up, no offense intended.