Ya just gotta love Hey Yall!

I guess I shouldn't complain about getting my toes stepped on, after all I was the one who threw my dance card on the floor.

Hey all, let clarify what I said and suggested.

I never said lets give up our rights. In fact I said just the opposite.

I said I don't want to abrogate anyones right against unlawful search and seizure.

I don't advocate legally prescribing greater power to our fish and wildlife officers.

I don't want to get involved in what you do in the privacy of your home.

I expressed that I didn't have much trouble voluntarily conceeding some of my rights while fishing if that would help protect the resource. AND I suggested that if you had nothing to fear discovery of, then you had nothing to fear from voluntarily complying with a search.

***Individualized Responses ***

Cowlitzfisherman
If I have only fishing paraphernalia on me, then the obvious reason to search me is for game violations. I said I was OK with being searched. I didn't say you had to be OK with being searched.

The entire key to this thread was 'is it OK to search a particular boat.' I don't have the answer to that, because as they say, "it assumes facts not yet in evidence"

The entire key to this thread for me was to express a manner in which we may lessen some of the apparent fear and hostility towards our fish and wildlife officers and make the whole process work towards the good of our sport.

I would like to go fishing more, but no matter how hard I try, over the years I have only been able to average about 150 days on the water a year. This last year wasn't quite up to snuff in that regards, but having 4 kids, 8 to 1 (for an old fart I guess I'm not shooting too many blanks ) and a wife that wasn't up to par, made it a little difficult to shuck the whole thing and grab a rod.

In that vein, if you feel like sharing,if any of that Cowlitz River water is any good for fly fishing maybe we can hook up on the water sometime.


Pathfinder
I haven't advocated giving up any of our rights, only voluntarily conceeding on one of them while fishing.

Concerning the elephant illustration. Two big game guides are looking at a guy smashed flat in a tent. The first one says, 'What happened?', The second one replied. 'He thought by keeping the trunk out he could keep the elephant out. What he didn't realize is that closing the tent flap wouldn't necessarily keep him from getting squished.'

At what point do we balance the protection of our rights against the loss of our privileges?

Are we going to see a catch and release fishery on any of the S-rivers this spring?

LittleZoZo
You mention ethics and making sure those in authority don't abuse our constitutional rights that many have given their lives to defend. I agree 100%. I spent my time in the service, and was medically discharged with a bum leg for it. I know what men have given up to protect our freedoms, and I have given so little as compared to some.

But as a matter of principal how can you say the above about ethics and principal and yet a couple of posts up you suggest lying about the situation you find yourself in. It doesn't wash to me. Ethics is like a chain, it doesn't matter which link is broken, the chain is still broken.


G-MAN
I didn't say we should let someone violate our rights, I suggested voluntarily conceeding one for a while, like while on the water.

I was pretty sure it was just an example, I just wanted everyone to know where I'm NOT coming from.

Hey at my age I do so know what pot is, it's what I don't have to piss in.


DanS
I think the statement 'to reason that if I'm not doing anything wrong, I shouldn't worry' is goofy, is what's goofy. Tell me if I'm not doing anything wrong what have I to fear?

Also nowhere did I suggest we put a government agent your house, your business, your car, well yes your car but only long enough to ensure that you aren't cheating the rest of us by fishing unethically.

Yes, I get just as frustrated by the zillion game violations I have witness that aren't written up. But what do we do about that? It's not always possible to just whip out the ol' cell phone and touch them Ma Bell style.


RT
I certainly would be the last to condone perjury. Especially by an officer of the court. However, by your own admission you were in the fix you were in because you didn't take the time to make sure before you went fishing. The way to avoid this situation, and it goes for all of us, it to make sure we know the regs for the water we are going to fish, before we get there.

I am always amazed at the posts on this and other boards where someone will ask, Is it OK to fish for this fish, in this water, in this way right now and by the way how many can I keep. (not directed at you RT) why not get the regs and make sure that someone isn't giving us incorrect information.


LittleZoZo
I don't want to see anybody break the rules to facilitate accomplishing their agenda, certainly not to the point where they violate your rights.

I can guarantee you that I am not too weak willed to take a stand. And seeing as how I was the first one in this thread to pretty much state directly that 'if you don't do anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide' I take a little umbrage that you make the generalization you do without knowing me.

No, having a badge and a gun does not make cops superior to us. But having duly constituted law behind them should make us at least repect their postion.

No you don't have the reason to look in my boat just because you want to. You don't have the authority to enforce anything. But if a game officer asks to inspect my equipment, I can say with a certainty, because I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear and will let them inspect to their hearts content.


Dave Jackson
I agree intrusions into your privacy as a private citizen without just cause is not acceptable.

The only problem with a 'thorough and accurate' investigation into game violations is that by the time they get started the fish is 'HOME' in the freezer. The same 'HOME' that I don't want to see subjected to unlawful search and seizure.

What I think we all ought to work towards is ensuring that the abusive behavior is stopped on the water or bank before it has a chance to get 'HOME'.

***End Individualized Responses***

Anyway I'm tired, I won't convert anyone, and I'm not really trying too.

I will continue to fish and be pretty relaxed about it.

Thanks for the discourse, it was enlightning.

Good Luck to all on the water this year.


Cordially and Respectfully

Wes

First of all, I've never met a Fish cop that was a jerk without being provoked into becoming one.

Someone, back in the 60's, got on this "civil rights" kick, and presses it just because he can. Yes, you can forbid a cop from performing a search. But why? Just because you can? So you can show your strength sans the badge?

If you've got nothing to hide, let him search. Big deal.

Fifteen years ago, when I was steelheading ALOT, I killed ALOT of fish. In the past ten years, I've had lots of time to reflect on how devastating a good fisherman can be. On one particular river, I caught 105 fish in a year. Now, how about putting 20 other fishermen on that river, who could fish as well or better. A handful of good fishermen can annihilate a river.

Keep the doors open to the game cops. That is what prevents the above scenario from happening again. Nobody needs, or can eat, 20 steelhead a year. If someone gets busted for over-limit, I tip my hat to the game cop.

They aren't jerks. They're keeping the numbers up so we have seasons. We got busted once for over-limit on clams. We were ALL over-limit by double ( butterclam poundage which I wasn't aware of ) and the cop gave one ticket. Not four. Does this sound like a jerk to you?
Open up your boat. What do you have to hide?
diana

Wes!

Teach me to write like you! I WANT THIS NOVEL OF MINE DONE! I WANNA GET RICH FROM IT SO I CAN SCREW OFF THE REST OF MY LIFE!

Okay, sorry, I'm outta wind...

Hay Yall Watch This, I was havin' the highist respect for ya 'till ya confessed to havin' kin that are lawyers...

See guys, this is what I'm talking about, what happened to RT. RT had to go to court and lose a days wages just because a game warden stepped over the line. How can RT recoup his lost wages? He can't. Should of told the judge the warden LIED! Next time the judge would have to question the warden's story. It could happen to you too if you don't know your Constitional Rights and stand up for them. Bobberdown, what are you afraied of??? Do you think he's gonna kick the stuffing out of you or shoot you if you don't let him search without "Probable Cause?" No he won't. What he will do is think twice about trying an Illegal Search. Remember if they "ASK TO SEARCH" You can let them or you can tell them "NO, because you don't have any reason to search do you???"

What happened to RT and LittleZoZO happens more than you think. They know most people won't question their authority or go to court to dispute the charges. The judges are there to protect our Rights, not to get our money. If a warden is found operating outside of the law and proceedures, he will be replaced by another who will not step over those lines that WE voted in place to protect everyone's Rights.

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: G-MAN ]

RT's post had nothing to do with illegal search and seisure. It had to do with a law enforcement officer writing a ticket with inadequate evidence. By not knowing the rules of the river RT put himself in a position to get the ticket even though in the end he didn't deserve it. The more you know and abide by the rules the less you have to fear law enforcement officers. We don't have the resources for game agents to actually witness every possible infraction. They should board boats to look for stashed over limits, wild fish in C&R areas, barbed hooks in barbless zones, bait in no-bait zones. This level of search is necessary to assure that everyone is following the rules. Otherwise many would not follow the rules....on the otherhand I see many not following the rules already. I for one am willing to accept a liberal search intepretation to maintain our fishing resource.

R Ridgeway, RT's post was about whether or not wardens should have more power/authority. They should not. Properly use what "WE" have given them, don't abuse it. He didn't warrant a ticket just because he had bait. He almost broke the law but didn't. Yes, he should of known the regs but the point was, "The warden LIED!" Wouldn't check his story. Same with LittleZoZo. You think they should be able to search our boats anytime they want? How about our cars? Our homes? Our personal bodies? Where do you say stop to Violating your Constitional Rights which you voted for? When it becomes personal to you or to someone close to you? When it happens to someone we don't know it isn't a big deal is it? You truly believe it's ok to Violate everyone's rights just to catch a few that break the law? I'm not knocking your beliefs because it's your right to believe that. All I ask is where do you want to say stop. I've been to alot of countries that search whenever they want to, it's not where I want to live.

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: G-MAN ]

g-man and others, PLEASE reread my initial post before making an assumption that I agree to my rights being violated. I do not want my or any other person's rights violated. What I belive I said was that if I wasn't around my boat when the game warden was there that I did not expect him to wait for me to get back to start looking. I did say that I expected an explanation.

I did say that if someone with a gun asked me to do something, submit to a search for instance, I would comply. (Because I have done nothing wrong.) I went on to say that I would take the matter up later with the proper authorities if I did not think he was in the right. - Does not make much sense to argue with an officer bent on giving you a ticket because will only make them more determined to give you one. Take your case to the judge. Same for game wardens.

I did say that they have an unpleasant job. Yes they did choose their profession. But keep in mind that the majority of the people they approach will be armed - either with gun or knife - and are by nature more independant and self reliant than the general pupulace. (People who just lie down and 'take it' tend not to be adventuresome enough to head out to the wilderness for hunting or fishing.) This means that there will be more of a perception of resistance to them doing their job. That job does not entail harassing, lying, or taking advantage of people. I do not in any way condone that. It does entail following up on leads where circumstantial evidence is going to be the preponderance of the evidence to go on. They should be prepared to back it up though or suffer consequences. This is why I believe that they should be held to a higher standard of accountability than someone not in their position.

Hey 'yall,

You mention your brother and your cousins. I didn't realize 'yall could differentiate between the two...

Saltine:

It's quite easy really. His brothers are guys and his cousins are their wives.

Whether or not I want someone searching my "stuff" because I am hiding something is totally irrelevant. I have the right to refuse. It's not giving anyone a hard time. It's a right that has had blood spilled over centuries to protect.

Until the laws change, they need to just follow the protocol before them. A guy says "no", then you deal with it and move on, or you get a warrant. Or you damn quickly think up some bogus probable cause. (in the shoes of the enforcer)

I have consented to searches when I wasn't hiding anything, and I have also not given consent when I wasn't hiding anything. Annnnnnnnnnnnd everytime I have given a "no" a flag was immediately raised and harassment followed suit.

I commend them for the jobs they do. They are the ones we call when we've been wronged and they give their lives for a job that doesn't pay that well.

Ask DanS, a gamie up in Hoodsport was my best friend for about 5 minutes after he made his busts courtesy of "this" reliable and credible witness. And that's only after I approached the violators myself and asked them to stop. They didn't so gamie got called. Easy as that.

When both sides make a conscious effort, everything works smoothly.

I always am curtious to game officials when they stop me and yes I too find them to be an excellent source of information. It is the game, I be nice to you, you be nice to me and we all have a happy day. I too have found most game cops appreciate some friendly banter and it makes them feel you are on thier side.

I am torn though and sometimes align myself more closely with Hey y'all's last post. We should keep the game cops honest and keep our rights. As a matter of principle I tend to want to say no to all searches. It is the cops game to get pissy and try to intimidate those who say no to illegal searches. What would happen if "we" asked for them to consider this - and "you" called them on thier attempt to break your rights. Then just reasure them that you are only protecting the constitition. I guess you should make sure you are really legal before doing this as to ensure you don't have a bad apple write you up.

Good topic and I have learned alot. I think in Oregon, the Licence you sign, says land owners and cops can check your game. I guess that probable cause would apply also as far as searching farthur in your car, boat, etc. I see now that the little statement you sign isn't an open door but I still have my eyes open and am looking for more info.

Thanks all for your input.

Hi All,

Well I went back and took another look at the RCW.

In all the hoopla about protecting everyone’s rights that were earned in blood (not to be taken in any way, shape or form as a derogatory comment about the members of our armed forces or any of the sacrifices they have made/are making) and whether everyone could/should allow themselves and their equipment to be unlawfully searched and how everyone should just say NO to being searched, well it appears that you can’t just say NO.

In focusing on search without warrant and the wording of RCW 77.15.094, we (at lease I) overlooked the full extent of the wording in RCW 77.15.080.

It simply states that based on the fact that you are hunting or fishing, fish and wildlife officers have the AUTHORITY to, (a) temporarily stop you and inspect your licence, tags, etc. (b) any game you have in your possession, and (c) search the equipment being used, to ensure compliance with the (sic. game)laws.

A fish and wildlife officer doesn't need to catch you in the act, or even have a suspicion that you have commited a violation to search you, it is mandated by constitued law that they (fish and wildlife officer(s)) seach you to make sure you are complying with the fishing and hunting laws.

I would say as far as equipment goes, your boat and your tackle box is fair game (no pun intended). A vehicle would seem to offer more of a gray area, say if it was parked along side the road or in a parking lot, but I wouldn't try to argue too hard if you were on the ramp loading your boat on the trailer and they wanted to take a peek in the trunk or under the canopy on the truck.

Also because RCW 77.15.075 subsection (2) assigns Peace Officer Authority to all fish and wildlife officers, I wouldn’t place too much comfort in you ability to have the collateral discovery of your film canister of pot (or whatever) thrown out of court because the search was performed by a fish and wildlife officer and the finding was not fishing (hunting) related.


For review here is the text of RCW 77.5.080

RCW 77.15.080
Fish and wildlife officers -- Inspection authority -- Photo identification.
Based upon articulable facts that a person is engaged in fishing, harvesting, or hunting activities, fish and wildlife officers have the authority to temporarily stop the person and check for valid licenses, tags, permits, stamps, or catch record cards, and to inspect all fish, shellfish, seaweed, and wildlife in possession as well as the equipment being used to ensure compliance with the requirements of this title, and may request the person to write his or her signature for comparison with the signature on the license. Failure to comply with the request is prima facie evidence that the person is not the person named on the license. For licenses purchased over the internet or telephone, fish and wildlife officers may require the person, if age eighteen or older, to exhibit a driver's license or other photo identification.
[2001 c 306 §§ 1; 2001 c 253 §§ 23; 2000 c 107 §§ 233; 1998 c 190 §§ 113.]

Cordially and Respectfully

Wes

Wes

The courts know the difference between the word "inspect" and the word "search". Believe it or not, there is a world of difference between the too. If a game officer wanted to "inspect" my rod and reel, it doe's not give him (or her) the authority to take my reel apart and see what's in it. That's what search warrants are for. They need to explain to the judge, and convince him, that additional searches are warranted

When was the last time that a game officer asked you if he could "inspect" your boat?
I'll bet you that theirs lots of case law concerning this issue.

A cop has the right to inspect your divers license, but he doesn't have the right to inspect your entire wallet without "Probable cause".

Cowlitzfisherman

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

I can't believe you folks are still debating this. These are all laws that we must abide by when we choose to fish or hunt. Don't like it, then choose another hobby or be like that fool Tim Eyeman. Maybe you can come up with an even worse initiative than the cougar/bear one or the body gripping trap one.

Equipment is equipment. Boat, truck, rods, tackle box, etc. If you get caught in a flagrant violation of game laws, like a co-worker of mine did many years ago, they can confiscate all of the "equipment" used to commit the violation, including your vehicle. (This guy had been snagging silvers and kings out at Shilshole, and had poached about 20 fish that day to sell to a restaurant he worked at. Lost his fishing gear, but should have lost the truck and boat, too.)

Say "Hi!", stay right there to move rods out of the way so nothing gets broken, and let them get on with it. Thank them for protecting our resource. Pump them for info on what they have seen. Say "Bye".

They are not out there to be dicks. So don't you be one, either. You can definitely reap what you sow when dealing with law enforcement officers. I've seen it happen many times.

Andy

Andy, I'll give you this much....... I also think Tim Eyeman is an idiot. As for search and siezure laws and the way we choose to interperet them, lets just say that I have my views and you have yours. I'm done flogging this horse. Now go get in that helicopter and catch some more fish!

Wes,

You must have me confused with someone else: "...how everyone should just say NO to being searched, well it appears that you can’t just say NO."

Yeah, last time I checked, I'm telling everyone to just say "NO". I am telling them not to be afraid to use that right is all.

Again, if reread, one of my posts clearly states that they receive the proper respect each and every time I see them by getting Yes Sir'd and No Sir'd, etc. And most of the people who have ever met me, know that I do not take respect lightly. How many times did you get "sir'd" Doug?

The last line on one of my posts says " a conscious effort needs to be made on both sides."

Like Andy said, be right there to move rods, etc. out of the way if need be. If you don't want something to be found either leave it at home or just hide it someplace that you wouldn't hide a fish or your immediate tackle..lol

Many game officers make drug busts (mostly pot growers)back in my neck of the woods, so yes, you can get popped....and yes they can even administer speeding tickets and direct traffic. One of the two county game officers back home hunts on our farm. Yes, the laws differ state to state, but the authority is basically the same.

I am not debating anything other than I do not see why "we" have to conform to anything. That's why this country's moral value has dwindled: too much conformity.

Cowlitzfisherman has a very good point that I failed to notice. That being the differance between inspect and search.

An inspection is a totally different animal indeed and though it could be argued that there is a fine line, if you really put it to thought, the vast differences jump right out at you.

Point well made!

Hey Yall Watch This,

No I didn't confuse you with someone else because I really wasn't singling out comments made by you.

I was refering to the collective whole that seemed more or less to be getting their backs up about having to endure the indignity of having themselves and their equipment inspected.

I'm not much of a poster here. That puts us all at a disadvantage because the collective 'you' who are regulars of this board, don't have any history with me or my comments and therefor don't know where exactly I'm coming from.

For future reference, to avoid confusion about what I'm posting and who it might be directed at -

When I direct a comment at an individual, I'll preface my comment(s)as an individualized response and address my comments at the individual as I did in one of my posts earlier in this thread.

Also, in all fairness, I have been trying to avoid focusing on or picking on any one individual here in a personal manner. The one exception to that might have been to pick on LittleZoZo's comments when he painted himself into a little bit of a corner when he made the comment about ethics.

Not knowing LittleZoZo, I was picking on his comment rather than on him personally. I tend to want to meet someone face to face before making a judgement call as to whether they are someone I can get along with.

If I have offended anyone else on a personal level I appologize.

And I haven't been trying to just keep this issue inflamed for the sake of stirring it up. It has been an interesting discussion and forced me to review and think about my opinions on the subject. I haven't changed my stance for myself, but I will concede that I now understand that what I see as being totally harmless to myself might be violating someone elses sense of what fair. And that is OK because I'm not trying to force my values on anyone else.

Aside from my personal opinions, which only really impact me, all of us should make our decisions based on true information rather than emotion.

Again thanks for the discourse, if I have caused it to outstay its welcome, then my apologies.

Cordially

Wes