SJ
Well-known member
This thread has been interesting.
Southdakotahunter states: i know the only way to help control the animals is to hunt them, and not allowing hunting won't help the population
I don't believe hunting has ever controlled the population of deer. Common sense tells me that hunting only controls the size of the bucks and the population of bucks.
GF&P has said more than once the lockout has made no difference in license sales or kills, yet now they are saying that they knew herds would swell with the lockout. Which way is it?
Common sense also tells me that if I were an outfitter I would be more concerned with numbers than I would be with control of the population. I also would realize that the buck is the money cow and I need to produce more bucks and therefore I need lots of does.
If GF&P were concerned about management of the populations and not license sales GF&P would have a doe season only or at least request that when a double tag is given the doe be shot.
Last years hunting handbook stated that CO's or game wardens are out there helping the property owners with trespass and vandalism. I thought that was great but when I asked a GF&P employee, when they stopped a person on private property do they ask them if they have permission to be there, he stated that wasn't his problem. I showed him the hunting handbook. I wonder how they can help us from trespass if they don't ask if the hunter has the owner's permission. If the Co were to ask and the hunter didn't have permission he would be required to prosecute him for trespass which could cause the hunter to loose his hunting privileges for a couple or years.
Why would a game warden or a Co whose paycheck is created through license sales, bite the hand that feeds him? I now see that that has been deleted from the new hunting handbook or at least I couldn't find it.
Every County has a Sheriff and so I wonder why we need a CO. Maybe what is paid out for law enforcement by GF&P could be sent back to the county for the Sheriff. You might say well maybe the sheriff would be more concerned about license sales for his livelihood then the wants of his constituents and my answer would be at least he is an elected official. Eliminating the law enforcement would also leave more money for landowners who have deer depredation. Much of the 2.50 depredation part of the surcharge goes for miles and man hours. Before the surcharge was added there was still depredation and game wardens and they were paid. It would seem if GF&P were doing there job depredation would decline.
The 2.50 that goes for walk-in areas, I was told has very little overhead. I called a couple of people that had walk in area and asked them what sold them on the walk in they said the money and they don't have to monitor it as GF&P said they would. I thought why is there so little overhead and when I read about the walk in area on the GF&P website it states; Department personnel will visit all contract land annually to inspect signs. One person said they lied to me and I said no they told the truth, you just assumed more than once a year but just plain old common sense tells me that 56-60 CO's can't possibly monitor the walk in area. Sound good makes you feel good but just can't happen.
Then I wondered why anyone would put their land into walk in for 365 days for 4000 dollars maximum. For 11 bucks a day you can have from 1 to 100 hunters on your land with no right to deny. You will be the monitor as far as them abiding by the rules and if they don't you can call one of the 56 Co's as long as it is before quitting time. Why not just make up your own contract and charge an access fee of $30 a day and keep the right to deny. Call the Sheriff if you have problems as he is on call 24/7.
GF&P has become a big business enterprise with the only management of wildlife being controlled by the check they receive. Mother Nature has been and probably always will be what controls the population of wildlife. When you really think about it how can a recreation control wildlife numbers? GF&P would like you to think hunting is the only way and if you don't allow hunting there is nothing you can do with out GF&P. GF&P likes to put warm fuzzies in the hunting handbook to make people believe that the property owner has nothing to complain about because they are out there to help them but in reality it is just words with no actions. It just sounds good.
GF&P's interpretation of the open field's doctrine has closed more property to the average hunter than ever before.
People who have locked out, now realize they have rights and they are willing to defend them. Like it has been said you can either have property or be property and the people are not willing to be property of GF&P.
The open field's doctrine is not law. GF&P is only working within their interpretation of the open field's doctrine. The open field's doctrine is case law. If you look up doctrine it is defined as follows "a principle of law established trough past decisions". The only way for anyone to know if GF&P's interpretation of the open field's doctrine is correct is for a case to be presented before the court. Remember their interpretation is only their opinion with the support of the attorney general who is the STATE'S attorney, who is supported or influenced by the governor. The attorney General and GF&P's opinion holds no more water than any other attorney or for that matter anyone's opinion.
I personally have only found two cases that mention a compliance check and justify a compliance check on privately own property without property owner permission and that property was under a wildlife agency contract. The majority of the case law that deals with the open field's doctrine deals with drug dealers, moon shiners and illegal betting (criminals doing criminal acts). These cases also had loads of reasonable suspicion and probable cause before they entered.
I believe most property owners and most hunters are good law abiding people. I also don't believe it is criminal to own property or to hunt. So to be able to come on to property without permission would lead me to believe that GF&P's only probable cause is that you are a property owner or a hunter or that generally property owners and hunters are inclined to break the law. I don't believe that a judge would uphold that interpretation without any evidence of a crime or an active investigation without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. I don''t think a judge would take kindly to an agency breaking a law "trespass" to come on for no reason other than a fleeting thought that a crime could be happening. When you really think about it why don't they just go and get a warrant? Maybe a judge wouldn't give a warrant on a fleeting thought that a crime might could happen some where sometime?
You may say, if I have nothing to hide it shouldn't bother me if they come and go anytime anyplace without permission. My question would be the same to GF&P what do they have to hide that they can't come and ask permission to enter? Just because they have a badge on their chest doesn't mean they are above breaking the law, listen to the news. I read once that nearly half of the crime committed is committed by law enforcement.
The hunters have a contract with GF&P when they buy a license, giving up their rights, requiring them to show all kinds of identification. I as a property owner have no contract with GF&P giving up any of my rights. GF&P's interpretation of the open field's doctrine takes away a property owners safety net against government intrusion for no reason. The hunter has a choice he can choose not to buy a license. GF&P's interpretation gives me no choice. Freedom is choices.
If GF&P's interpretation is correct why isn't all law enforcement using it that way? Why doesn't highway patrol come onto private property to check driver's licenses and insurance cards?
One other thing that came out of the meeting with property owners that I attended was the transport permit you need when ever you are transporting wild meat whether it is to the neighbor next door or the church on Sunday. I asked if I made a hot dish for a potluck dinner and it had wild meat in it would I need a transport permit and he said yes. I wanted to ask if I ate wild meat in the morning and had to leave for a doctor's appt and was stopped would I need a transport permit.
I guess even though you buy a license to hunt you never really own or control the animal you shoot it will always be under the control of GF&P. I believe you can only have it in you freezer for a certain amount of time and if you eat it make sure you stay at home. Crime is usually committed for profit and for there to be profit it usually takes another individual and once another one knows it isn't a secret because a secret can only be a secret if it is never spoken. Most crimes are found out.
Denny Stated: Why don't you hunters come to Northern minnesota to hunt lots of public land and lots of deer.And no problems with the anti-government crowd come on up you can hunt all you want.And if you get a deer on my land you can drive your truck up to it and get it.Grass is dormant this time of year and useally grazed off by now and if not some tire tracks are'nt going to hurt anything.But the game warden might stop you so be legal and they are nice guys who have a house a wife and even some kids that love them.
As far as this guy is concerned I am not going to lower myself to name calling just because we don't agree. This is or was America land of the free, where people can think differently and not be assumed anti government. Having a different thought than others is not a crime. If he chooses to open his property to all without permission that is his choice it is his property and he has that right. I prefer to know who is on my land and why and that is my right. I hope this guy puts his address on the site so as hunters know where they can go without asking permission.
I don't know that anyone would disagree that the majority of game wardens are nice guys with a house and wife and even kids that love them. I don't think game wardens are bad people I just don't like the policy and procedure they are required to follow from those above. I don't take some one disagreeing with me as a personal attack on my house husband or kids. I think it would do this guy good to read the book "From Freedom to Slavery by Gerry Spence.
President Thomas Jefferson who authored the Declaration of Independence and who, alone among the presidents, allowed tyrannical laws to expire, and who reminded posterity that "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Ronald Reagan stated; we are a nation that has a government, not the other way around." "The federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government." "Government is not the solution to our problems Government is the problem".
Happy go lucky you are right our sheriff isn't DEA or FBI he is the top lawenforcement.
Southdakotahunter states: i know the only way to help control the animals is to hunt them, and not allowing hunting won't help the population
I don't believe hunting has ever controlled the population of deer. Common sense tells me that hunting only controls the size of the bucks and the population of bucks.
GF&P has said more than once the lockout has made no difference in license sales or kills, yet now they are saying that they knew herds would swell with the lockout. Which way is it?
Common sense also tells me that if I were an outfitter I would be more concerned with numbers than I would be with control of the population. I also would realize that the buck is the money cow and I need to produce more bucks and therefore I need lots of does.
If GF&P were concerned about management of the populations and not license sales GF&P would have a doe season only or at least request that when a double tag is given the doe be shot.
Last years hunting handbook stated that CO's or game wardens are out there helping the property owners with trespass and vandalism. I thought that was great but when I asked a GF&P employee, when they stopped a person on private property do they ask them if they have permission to be there, he stated that wasn't his problem. I showed him the hunting handbook. I wonder how they can help us from trespass if they don't ask if the hunter has the owner's permission. If the Co were to ask and the hunter didn't have permission he would be required to prosecute him for trespass which could cause the hunter to loose his hunting privileges for a couple or years.
Why would a game warden or a Co whose paycheck is created through license sales, bite the hand that feeds him? I now see that that has been deleted from the new hunting handbook or at least I couldn't find it.
Every County has a Sheriff and so I wonder why we need a CO. Maybe what is paid out for law enforcement by GF&P could be sent back to the county for the Sheriff. You might say well maybe the sheriff would be more concerned about license sales for his livelihood then the wants of his constituents and my answer would be at least he is an elected official. Eliminating the law enforcement would also leave more money for landowners who have deer depredation. Much of the 2.50 depredation part of the surcharge goes for miles and man hours. Before the surcharge was added there was still depredation and game wardens and they were paid. It would seem if GF&P were doing there job depredation would decline.
The 2.50 that goes for walk-in areas, I was told has very little overhead. I called a couple of people that had walk in area and asked them what sold them on the walk in they said the money and they don't have to monitor it as GF&P said they would. I thought why is there so little overhead and when I read about the walk in area on the GF&P website it states; Department personnel will visit all contract land annually to inspect signs. One person said they lied to me and I said no they told the truth, you just assumed more than once a year but just plain old common sense tells me that 56-60 CO's can't possibly monitor the walk in area. Sound good makes you feel good but just can't happen.
Then I wondered why anyone would put their land into walk in for 365 days for 4000 dollars maximum. For 11 bucks a day you can have from 1 to 100 hunters on your land with no right to deny. You will be the monitor as far as them abiding by the rules and if they don't you can call one of the 56 Co's as long as it is before quitting time. Why not just make up your own contract and charge an access fee of $30 a day and keep the right to deny. Call the Sheriff if you have problems as he is on call 24/7.
GF&P has become a big business enterprise with the only management of wildlife being controlled by the check they receive. Mother Nature has been and probably always will be what controls the population of wildlife. When you really think about it how can a recreation control wildlife numbers? GF&P would like you to think hunting is the only way and if you don't allow hunting there is nothing you can do with out GF&P. GF&P likes to put warm fuzzies in the hunting handbook to make people believe that the property owner has nothing to complain about because they are out there to help them but in reality it is just words with no actions. It just sounds good.
GF&P's interpretation of the open field's doctrine has closed more property to the average hunter than ever before.
People who have locked out, now realize they have rights and they are willing to defend them. Like it has been said you can either have property or be property and the people are not willing to be property of GF&P.
The open field's doctrine is not law. GF&P is only working within their interpretation of the open field's doctrine. The open field's doctrine is case law. If you look up doctrine it is defined as follows "a principle of law established trough past decisions". The only way for anyone to know if GF&P's interpretation of the open field's doctrine is correct is for a case to be presented before the court. Remember their interpretation is only their opinion with the support of the attorney general who is the STATE'S attorney, who is supported or influenced by the governor. The attorney General and GF&P's opinion holds no more water than any other attorney or for that matter anyone's opinion.
I personally have only found two cases that mention a compliance check and justify a compliance check on privately own property without property owner permission and that property was under a wildlife agency contract. The majority of the case law that deals with the open field's doctrine deals with drug dealers, moon shiners and illegal betting (criminals doing criminal acts). These cases also had loads of reasonable suspicion and probable cause before they entered.
I believe most property owners and most hunters are good law abiding people. I also don't believe it is criminal to own property or to hunt. So to be able to come on to property without permission would lead me to believe that GF&P's only probable cause is that you are a property owner or a hunter or that generally property owners and hunters are inclined to break the law. I don't believe that a judge would uphold that interpretation without any evidence of a crime or an active investigation without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. I don''t think a judge would take kindly to an agency breaking a law "trespass" to come on for no reason other than a fleeting thought that a crime could be happening. When you really think about it why don't they just go and get a warrant? Maybe a judge wouldn't give a warrant on a fleeting thought that a crime might could happen some where sometime?
You may say, if I have nothing to hide it shouldn't bother me if they come and go anytime anyplace without permission. My question would be the same to GF&P what do they have to hide that they can't come and ask permission to enter? Just because they have a badge on their chest doesn't mean they are above breaking the law, listen to the news. I read once that nearly half of the crime committed is committed by law enforcement.
The hunters have a contract with GF&P when they buy a license, giving up their rights, requiring them to show all kinds of identification. I as a property owner have no contract with GF&P giving up any of my rights. GF&P's interpretation of the open field's doctrine takes away a property owners safety net against government intrusion for no reason. The hunter has a choice he can choose not to buy a license. GF&P's interpretation gives me no choice. Freedom is choices.
If GF&P's interpretation is correct why isn't all law enforcement using it that way? Why doesn't highway patrol come onto private property to check driver's licenses and insurance cards?
One other thing that came out of the meeting with property owners that I attended was the transport permit you need when ever you are transporting wild meat whether it is to the neighbor next door or the church on Sunday. I asked if I made a hot dish for a potluck dinner and it had wild meat in it would I need a transport permit and he said yes. I wanted to ask if I ate wild meat in the morning and had to leave for a doctor's appt and was stopped would I need a transport permit.
I guess even though you buy a license to hunt you never really own or control the animal you shoot it will always be under the control of GF&P. I believe you can only have it in you freezer for a certain amount of time and if you eat it make sure you stay at home. Crime is usually committed for profit and for there to be profit it usually takes another individual and once another one knows it isn't a secret because a secret can only be a secret if it is never spoken. Most crimes are found out.
Denny Stated: Why don't you hunters come to Northern minnesota to hunt lots of public land and lots of deer.And no problems with the anti-government crowd come on up you can hunt all you want.And if you get a deer on my land you can drive your truck up to it and get it.Grass is dormant this time of year and useally grazed off by now and if not some tire tracks are'nt going to hurt anything.But the game warden might stop you so be legal and they are nice guys who have a house a wife and even some kids that love them.
As far as this guy is concerned I am not going to lower myself to name calling just because we don't agree. This is or was America land of the free, where people can think differently and not be assumed anti government. Having a different thought than others is not a crime. If he chooses to open his property to all without permission that is his choice it is his property and he has that right. I prefer to know who is on my land and why and that is my right. I hope this guy puts his address on the site so as hunters know where they can go without asking permission.
I don't know that anyone would disagree that the majority of game wardens are nice guys with a house and wife and even kids that love them. I don't think game wardens are bad people I just don't like the policy and procedure they are required to follow from those above. I don't take some one disagreeing with me as a personal attack on my house husband or kids. I think it would do this guy good to read the book "From Freedom to Slavery by Gerry Spence.
President Thomas Jefferson who authored the Declaration of Independence and who, alone among the presidents, allowed tyrannical laws to expire, and who reminded posterity that "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Ronald Reagan stated; we are a nation that has a government, not the other way around." "The federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government." "Government is not the solution to our problems Government is the problem".
Happy go lucky you are right our sheriff isn't DEA or FBI he is the top lawenforcement.
