Honestly, it could actually be a net benefit against true poaching if it results in more time spent doing real investigation work and cultivating information obtained, and less time spent blind hog snooping for bs with no info at all.
HB1379- Game Warden access limits..
10,957 Views |
181 Replies |
Last: 5 hrs ago by DannyDuberstein
So you're guilty until proven innocent.txags92 said:No more seasons and no more bag limits boys…we are FREE! Kill anything you want anytime you want…there's no tyranny allowed here!schmellba99 said:So not only do we not actually ever own the land we pay for, but we also currently do not have the presumption that the property is truly private since the state can enter said property at any time, without a warrant or probable cause.txags92 said:He said he isn't willing to give up his personal freedom. Right now, he has game on the property that belong to the state and under existing state law, the wardens have the right to come on his property unannounced to check that he is not violating laws regarding the hunting of those game animals. So he doesn't have that personal freedom right now and nothing in the proposed legislation being discussed is asking him to give up any freedom he already has.GSS said:I think that is a gross misrepresentation, and response to, of what Russ11 was stating. Where did he state he was trying to do anything related to game laws?txags92 said:Just put up a high fence and kill/push all the game animals out before you close the last panel and you can tell the game warden to pound sand because you have no game on the property for him or her to check and don't hunt anything. If you want to have game on the property and hunt it, you aren't giving up a personal private freedom that you never had to begin with.Russ11 said:
Plus something to be said about going out to a remote property to escape the busy world and then having someone show up on foot in the dark to check you...
I don't think I am willing to give up my personal private freedom because other bad apples are breaking the law.
If he wants to enjoy his property free of "harassment" from game wardens, all he has to do is get all of the state owned game off his property and they will no longer have any reason to need to come check his property. Yes it is a ridiculous case example, but the wardens are not there to invade his privacy, they are there to verify that he is not violating laws regarding the taking of state owned resources. Unlike DPS writing speeding tickets or wardens checking boats on public waters, hunting takes place almost exclusively on private land in Texas, so necessarily, enforcing the laws regarding it will also take place almost exclusively on private land.
So much freedom.
I thought we live in America?
I've had multiple contacts with GW's over the years. The vast majority of them have been while saltwater fishing or duck hunting. Most have been pretty good. Most, but definitely not all.Gunny456 said:
Anybody that has read any of my posts over the years are aware that I am a huge property rights advocate. I am also a supporter of our game wardens and biologist and the rigorous enforcement of our game laws.
I would ask you guys, who I'm sure, at one time or another, watched Lone Star Law, ….or any of you who really understand and are educated on our Texas Wildlife Code…, to honestly assess the penalties and fines that Texas has for game violations. For the most part they are minimal in penalties, $$ of fines are laughably lenient.
Yet, our game wardens are charged with the enforcement of game laws on fish and wildlife that are state property that reside almost entirely on private lands.
I agree wholeheartedly on the limiting of government overreach or the government involvement in my life. So, yes, this bill, if passed, will supposedly protect me from abuses of game wardens entering my property.
However, with that being said, as I said above, in all my years of owning a ranch, or growing up on one, or over 65 years of hunting and fishing…. I have never…. Not Once, had a game warden abuse any of their authority. In all my old years of sitting in a deer blind, I have never had a warden drive up to my blind and check anything…..and in all my thousands of dove hunts, I have had wardens check me a total of three damn times and they didn't disrupt anything of my hunt. ….Quite to the contrary, they actually told me where some doves were flying! I'll further that with the statement that I have no knowledge of any of my fellow landowners or ranchers ever experiencing anything abusive as well.
Are there anecdotal examples of the abuse? Seems there is. Is it rampant? Seems it's not. But now we pass another law that is yet another to add to the thousands that the government already has?
Somebody made a statement that the wardens should only be allowed to check you after the hunt. How is the warden supposed to do that on a deer lease if he can't get to the hunters camp to check?
Or how are they supposed to find that baited field your neighbor has for doves? Or check the deer camp with 20 out of state hunters on 400 acres your neighbor leases out and you hear shooting at all hours?
We can't have them ( the wardens) wait and check hunters coolers on the highway because, after all that upsets people as well.
This bill, if passed, imho, will benefit and protect the law breakers. They are the ones who will now take advantage of this law, if passed, to the fullest….and our fish and wildlife will be what pays the price…..an ultimately the law abiding hunter and fisherman as well.
I did have an instance on opening day down on Matagorda once where the GW's came rolling in around 7:45 (well after sunrise) in an airboat. They plowed right through our decoy spread, parked the airboat next to our pit blind and spent 20 minutes going through everything we had looking for lead shot or an unsigned duck stamp. Then they took about 10 minutes getting out because the airboat was suctioned to the mud. By the time it was done, we pretty much just packed up and went home because they had absolutely ruined our morning hunt and any chance of getting birds was nada after they did their thing.
GW visited our camp twice last year after only one other visit prior. He loves to show up around 2:30 - conveniently right at the time we all pack up and head out for our afternoon hunt. Last time they rummaged through every single ice chest, went through every buggy and poked around every camp house/trailer for a good hour before moseying off. Didn't exactly ruin the afternoon hunt, but it was a dick move to show up when he knew it was the time we headed out and delayed all of us for an hour.
Same GW also gave me a chicken sht ticket for dispatching a deer 3 or 4 years ago that I hit in my neighborhood that was far beyond saving simply because I didn't call the game warden hotline. Heinous, heinous criminal that I am - deciding that I am capable of knowing when an animal is injured to the point that putting it down is the correct thing to do instead of calling a 1-800 number and waiting 4-5 hours for the GW to show up (which is what happened when a poacher gut shot a deer in our neighborhood the year before). He tried to give me about 5 or 6 citations over that one, but ended up with just one that even the Constable DA looked at and asked why I even got a ticket for doing the right thing. While we were talking when he first showed up to my house, we were sitting in my office while I was explaining what happened and why I did what I did. He started asking about the deer on my wall, then asked if he could see my license from the year I shot that deer so he could check the harvest log on the license. It was absolute ticky tack crap he was looking for.
Exactly, my post was satirical
No, I was just reacting sarcastically because that is what these kinds of threads always devolve into. We can discuss the nuances or how and why game wardens have been given a different set of powers than other law enforcement and have a civilized discussion about the hows and whys and where we each think the limits should be. And then there is always Captain Tyranny that comes in and declares that everything government does is wrong and they have usurped all private rights and everything we think we can do is just false and an illusion, etc.Jawn Dough said:So you're guilty until proven innocent.txags92 said:No more seasons and no more bag limits boys…we are FREE! Kill anything you want anytime you want…there's no tyranny allowed here!schmellba99 said:So not only do we not actually ever own the land we pay for, but we also currently do not have the presumption that the property is truly private since the state can enter said property at any time, without a warrant or probable cause.txags92 said:He said he isn't willing to give up his personal freedom. Right now, he has game on the property that belong to the state and under existing state law, the wardens have the right to come on his property unannounced to check that he is not violating laws regarding the hunting of those game animals. So he doesn't have that personal freedom right now and nothing in the proposed legislation being discussed is asking him to give up any freedom he already has.GSS said:I think that is a gross misrepresentation, and response to, of what Russ11 was stating. Where did he state he was trying to do anything related to game laws?txags92 said:Just put up a high fence and kill/push all the game animals out before you close the last panel and you can tell the game warden to pound sand because you have no game on the property for him or her to check and don't hunt anything. If you want to have game on the property and hunt it, you aren't giving up a personal private freedom that you never had to begin with.Russ11 said:
Plus something to be said about going out to a remote property to escape the busy world and then having someone show up on foot in the dark to check you...
I don't think I am willing to give up my personal private freedom because other bad apples are breaking the law.
If he wants to enjoy his property free of "harassment" from game wardens, all he has to do is get all of the state owned game off his property and they will no longer have any reason to need to come check his property. Yes it is a ridiculous case example, but the wardens are not there to invade his privacy, they are there to verify that he is not violating laws regarding the taking of state owned resources. Unlike DPS writing speeding tickets or wardens checking boats on public waters, hunting takes place almost exclusively on private land in Texas, so necessarily, enforcing the laws regarding it will also take place almost exclusively on private land.
So much freedom.
I thought we live in America?
Newsflash, we have never owned land outright with no limitations whatsoever. There are tons of laws about what you can and can't do on your own property. There are tons of laws about what you can and can't do with the game that lives there. Some I agree with and some I don't. But the enforcement of those laws really hasn't changed for 50+ years. And yet now there are a bunch of guys infected by deer breeder bull**** stories about TPWD just storming into their property and wanting to kill all the deer for no good reason that are going on podcasts and youtube channels and telling everybody that TPWD is jack-booted thugs wanting to take away your rights.
And so to cater to those people buying the bull**** that is being spread, we have Reps and Sens out there filing bills to take away TPWD's ability to manage deer breeding, to make deer behind high fences livestock, to change how game wardens go about enforcing our game laws etc. It is all just BS and it pisses me off that so many people buy into it and turn any discussion of it into a "come and take it" argument where anybody who doesn't stand for absolutely no government right to do anything at all on your private property is some kind of soy boy pillow biter, when there is so much middle ground in there where most of us actually are.
I just get tired of it and think it is sad given how the OB used to be a place we could discuss these kinds of things civilly. None of us see 100% eye to eye on anything, but there is no reason we can't talk about it without getting into melodramatic theatrics. My post was just returning the same tactics for effect, not a serious belief that anybody actually wants that.
He wanted an old license's harvest log for a mount you had?!
And this is why people do not want to call the game wardens or have anything to do with them unless it is absolutely necessary.
And this is why people do not want to call the game wardens or have anything to do with them unless it is absolutely necessary.
Do you even know Schmellba? That guy can piss anybody off.TAMUallen said:
He wanted an old license's harvest log for a mount you had?!
And this is why people do not want to call the game wardens or have anything to do with them unless it is absolutely necessary.
Seriously though, that warden does sound like a dick.
He should have invited him to discuss it over lunch. At Chicken Oil.TAMUallen said:
He wanted an old license's harvest log for a mount you had?!
And this is why people do not want to call the game wardens or have anything to do with them unless it is absolutely necessary.
You are the one that really sent things off the rails with the entire premise that if a GW cannot walk onto your property at any time without any need to justify it, that poaching will become super duper prolific and that landowners will now get into the poaching game and that GW's will not have any ability whatsoever to enforce the law.
It's a silly and rather dumb premise, one I might add, that has been shot down on this thread multiple times by multiple different people as being exactly that - silly and dumb.
Nobody has really gotten into the deer breeder aspect of the proposal much on this thread. But since you opened that door - I've long argued that if you want to high fence your property - have at it. But the state has to come in and do a thorough survey of the wild game population that will not be able to go over or under or around the high fence and part of the cost of high fencing is that you buy that game from the state, along with the next X number of years of offspring. At that point they are livestock and you can do whatever you want with them - hunt in July for all I care, they are livestock at that point.
I'm also vehemently against deer breeding because it is the single largest contributing factor to the proliferation and spread of CWD well beyond what would be a natural spread and progression.
Those of us that are in favor of not allowing the GW's to access property just because are that way simply because we think the law enforcement agencies should all have to follow the same set of rules with respect to our rights. You've also consistently ignored the fact that this law still gives GW's the power of the probable cause, emergency or warrant applications that are used daily by every single LEO agency out there.
It's a silly and rather dumb premise, one I might add, that has been shot down on this thread multiple times by multiple different people as being exactly that - silly and dumb.
Nobody has really gotten into the deer breeder aspect of the proposal much on this thread. But since you opened that door - I've long argued that if you want to high fence your property - have at it. But the state has to come in and do a thorough survey of the wild game population that will not be able to go over or under or around the high fence and part of the cost of high fencing is that you buy that game from the state, along with the next X number of years of offspring. At that point they are livestock and you can do whatever you want with them - hunt in July for all I care, they are livestock at that point.
I'm also vehemently against deer breeding because it is the single largest contributing factor to the proliferation and spread of CWD well beyond what would be a natural spread and progression.
Those of us that are in favor of not allowing the GW's to access property just because are that way simply because we think the law enforcement agencies should all have to follow the same set of rules with respect to our rights. You've also consistently ignored the fact that this law still gives GW's the power of the probable cause, emergency or warrant applications that are used daily by every single LEO agency out there.
I was responding to people questioning what scenarios required it, not hypothesizing them all on my own. I will say that I don't think any of us have any real idea of how many cases come from a warden just going on a property for a random check. So anybody drawing firm conclusions about what will or won't happen are mostly flying blind. I think the devil is in the details when it comes to how the courts define "probable cause" when accepting cases from game wardens. There is a long line of stories of local JPs and county courts dropping cases or going super easy on game law violations as part of local good ole boy networks to the point that you couldn't even call them a slap on the wrist. So getting warrants and/or proving they had legit probable cause in some jurisdictions is likely to be anything but quick and easy.schmellba99 said:
You are the one that really sent things off the rails with the entire premise that if a GW cannot walk onto your property at any time without any need to justify it, that poaching will become super duper prolific and that landowners will now get into the poaching game and that GW's will not have any ability whatsoever to enforce the law.
It's a silly and rather dumb premise, one I might add, that has been shot down on this thread multiple times by multiple different people as being exactly that - silly and dumb.
Nobody has really gotten into the deer breeder aspect of the proposal much on this thread. But since you opened that door - I've long argued that if you want to high fence your property - have at it. But the state has to come in and do a thorough survey of the wild game population that will not be able to go over or under or around the high fence and part of the cost of high fencing is that you buy that game from the state, along with the next X number of years of offspring. At that point they are livestock and you can do whatever you want with them - hunt in July for all I care, they are livestock at that point.
I'm also vehemently against deer breeding because it is the single largest contributing factor to the proliferation and spread of CWD well beyond what would be a natural spread and progression.
Those of us that are in favor of not allowing the GW's to access property just because are that way simply because we think the law enforcement agencies should all have to follow the same set of rules with respect to our rights. You've also consistently ignored the fact that this law still gives GW's the power of the probable cause, emergency or warrant applications that are used daily by every single LEO agency out there.
From the sounds of it, you had a bunch of bad experiences with wardens and without knowing the rest of the story of what made the wardens behave the way they did, it is hard to tell what else was going on. I am friends with two retired game wardens and many of their stories start with "I was trying to be nice and was just going to give them a warning, but then..." On the other hand, they have plenty of things to say about some of the newer wardens as well. So nobody is perfect.
There is no 4th Amendment violation. There are a bunch of people posting who aren't actually reading the Amendment and don't understand case law.BoerneGator said:The quoted allowances should provide game wardens all the flexibility any peace officer should need in pursuit of violators.Quote:
"HB 1379 would allow game wardens to enter private property with owner permission, under probable cause, warrant execution, or while determining an emergency."
Suppose this same "authority", as it currently exists for GWs extended to one's home/domicile? Realistically, how is that any different than entering one's home without permission?
Private property is to be respected. Barns, lodges, RVs, etc should all be protected, under the 4th amendment from intrusion by GWs, without the caveats outlined in the proposed legislation.
Game wardens conduct inspections. Inspections that you agree to when you get a hunting/ fishing license. This means anytime you are engaged in a hunting or fishing activity, you can be inspected and anything you have that is used for the activity can also be inspected. Coolers, trucks, guns; Not your home.
If you didn't agree by getting a license, then you are in violation for not having the license to start with.
Wildlife belong to the people of Texas, not to you, or any other individual. The state is tasked with managing these assets for the citizenry. Unfettered hunting is why animal populations dwindle. Black bears were hunted out of Texas in the 50's. These public resources must be protected and managed.
The public can't come onto your land to check the public property (the wildlife), just like the public can't stop you for speeding on the public roadways. That is delegated to law enforcement on behalf of the public.
No one hear has ever been on property with an easement? Having state (the citizens) owned property on your land is the same as having powerlines or a pipeline across your land; There is essentially an easement. If ercot needs to inspect the powerlines, they don't need a warrant. If your land is on the border, USBP doesn't violate the 4th Amendment when they're on that land.
The 4th Amendment protects you against UNREASONABLE searches. Why is "unreasonable" the word that is included? Why doesn't it say "ALL" searches or just leave it at "searches?"
Who defines what is reasonable? The US Constitution says the Supreme Court is who interprets and has the final say.
The courts have factored in what is not very intrusive to what is very intrusive. Plain view, cars, open field are not as intrusive as curtilage. Searching a person or someone's home is extremely intrusive and will require much more to be considered "reasonable" under the 4th Amendment.
Because game are property of the citizens, the courts have found that it is reasonable for the people who are tasked with protecting them, to go where they can protect them, so long as they are reasonable, ie. not too intrusive. A warden can't just come to your house on a hunch and start checking your freezers, that is unreasonable.
Some wardens, like any LE, are not good, the same as any profession. Every agency has stories of the cop who shows up on scene and gets escalates the situation. There are more wardens these days that have never hunted or fished because of trying to diversify the agencies. A warden showing up during prime hunting time sucks and shouldn't happen, but that's a training issue that the academy should address.
If you didn't agree by getting a license, then you are in violation for not having the license to start with.
Wildlife belong to the people of Texas, not to you, or any other individual. The state is tasked with managing these assets for the citizenry. Unfettered hunting is why animal populations dwindle. Black bears were hunted out of Texas in the 50's. These public resources must be protected and managed.
The public can't come onto your land to check the public property (the wildlife), just like the public can't stop you for speeding on the public roadways. That is delegated to law enforcement on behalf of the public.
No one hear has ever been on property with an easement? Having state (the citizens) owned property on your land is the same as having powerlines or a pipeline across your land; There is essentially an easement. If ercot needs to inspect the powerlines, they don't need a warrant. If your land is on the border, USBP doesn't violate the 4th Amendment when they're on that land.
The 4th Amendment protects you against UNREASONABLE searches. Why is "unreasonable" the word that is included? Why doesn't it say "ALL" searches or just leave it at "searches?"
Who defines what is reasonable? The US Constitution says the Supreme Court is who interprets and has the final say.
The courts have factored in what is not very intrusive to what is very intrusive. Plain view, cars, open field are not as intrusive as curtilage. Searching a person or someone's home is extremely intrusive and will require much more to be considered "reasonable" under the 4th Amendment.
Because game are property of the citizens, the courts have found that it is reasonable for the people who are tasked with protecting them, to go where they can protect them, so long as they are reasonable, ie. not too intrusive. A warden can't just come to your house on a hunch and start checking your freezers, that is unreasonable.
Some wardens, like any LE, are not good, the same as any profession. Every agency has stories of the cop who shows up on scene and gets escalates the situation. There are more wardens these days that have never hunted or fished because of trying to diversify the agencies. A warden showing up during prime hunting time sucks and shouldn't happen, but that's a training issue that the academy should address.
InfantryAg said:
Game wardens conduct inspections. Inspections that you agree to when you get a hunting/ fishing license. This means anytime you are engaged in a hunting or fishing activity, you can be inspected and anything you have that is used for the activity can also be inspected. Coolers, trucks, guns; Not your home.
If you didn't agree by getting a license, then you are in violation for not having the license to start with.
Wildlife belong to the people of Texas, not to you, or any other individual. The state is tasked with managing these assets for the citizenry. Unfettered hunting is why animal populations dwindle. Black bears were hunted out of Texas in the 50's. These public resources must be protected and managed.
The public can't come onto your land to check the public property (the wildlife), just like the public can't stop you for speeding on the public roadways. That is delegated to law enforcement on behalf of the public.
No one hear has ever been on property with an easement? Having state (the citizens) owned property on your land is the same as having powerlines or a pipeline across your land; There is essentially an easement. If ercot needs to inspect the powerlines, they don't need a warrant. If your land is on the border, USBP doesn't violate the 4th Amendment when they're on that land.
The 4th Amendment protects you against UNREASONABLE searches. Why is "unreasonable" the word that is included? Why doesn't it say "ALL" searches or just leave it at "searches?"
Who defines what is reasonable? The US Constitution says the Supreme Court is who interprets and has the final say.
The courts have factored in what is not very intrusive to what is very intrusive. Plain view, cars, open field are not as intrusive as curtilage. Searching a person or someone's home is extremely intrusive and will require much more to be considered "reasonable" under the 4th Amendment.
Because game are property of the citizens, the courts have found that it is reasonable for the people who are tasked with protecting them, to go where they can protect them, so long as they are reasonable, ie. not too intrusive. A warden can't just come to your house on a hunch and start checking your freezers, that is unreasonable.
Some wardens, like any LE, are not good, the same as any profession. Every agency has stories of the cop who shows up on scene and gets escalates the situation. There are more wardens these days that have never hunted or fished because of trying to diversify the agencies. A warden showing up during prime hunting time sucks and shouldn't happen, but that's a training issue that the academy should address.
Mansplaining the justification of government overreach to the OB and peak bootlicking to kick off the weekend is a bold strategy, Cotton.
"No one hear has ever been on property with an easement? Having state (the citizens) owned property on your land is the same as having powerlines or a pipeline across your land; There is essentially an easement. If ercot needs to inspect the powerlines, they don't need a warrant. If your land is on the border, USBP doesn't violate the 4th Amendment when they're on that land."
Your "easement" example is not even remotely the same, as the current GW authority. Easements are defined in scope, and likely represent a small percentage of a property...and any decent easement agreement does not allow for access to property outside of the easement.
Your "easement" example is not even remotely the same, as the current GW authority. Easements are defined in scope, and likely represent a small percentage of a property...and any decent easement agreement does not allow for access to property outside of the easement.
NRA Life
TSRA Life
TSRA Life
Just a factual reality that should be considered in this discussion…..
We don't own the physical dirt of the earth's surface. We own the rights associated with that physical dirt. If we own all the rights available to us, the government retains 4 rights that we can never own. Those include:
Taxation
Police Power
Escheat
Eminent Domain
Right, wrong, or indifferent, that is how the founding fathers setup our system of ownership. It would seem that GW authority falls under police power. From that perspective, I guess you would have to prove that the police power used is so egregious that it constitutes a regulatory taking and thus, compensation is necessary for its use. I don't know of any case law involving this issue, but I would assume if it has been heard, it very clearly ruled that GW authority is not a violation of police power.
I suppose this bill is trying to handle the issue in the appropriate manner of legislating it rather than leaving it up to the courts. Anyway, food for thought. We need to agree on a set of facts before we can really debate. I am still undecided on the merits of the bill and sway both directions depending upon the time of day.
We don't own the physical dirt of the earth's surface. We own the rights associated with that physical dirt. If we own all the rights available to us, the government retains 4 rights that we can never own. Those include:
Taxation
Police Power
Escheat
Eminent Domain
Right, wrong, or indifferent, that is how the founding fathers setup our system of ownership. It would seem that GW authority falls under police power. From that perspective, I guess you would have to prove that the police power used is so egregious that it constitutes a regulatory taking and thus, compensation is necessary for its use. I don't know of any case law involving this issue, but I would assume if it has been heard, it very clearly ruled that GW authority is not a violation of police power.
I suppose this bill is trying to handle the issue in the appropriate manner of legislating it rather than leaving it up to the courts. Anyway, food for thought. We need to agree on a set of facts before we can really debate. I am still undecided on the merits of the bill and sway both directions depending upon the time of day.
Good discussion but I'd like to see some checks of the police powers on private property. A little common sense goes a long way on this subject. As stated on the first day of this thread, in Se Tx, it has become common in the last 5 years for the game wardens to go cross country, ranch to ranch on atvs, off county roads, across farm fields at times. I don't want Anyone driving around my ranch on atvs while I'm hunting. To me it's a property rights issue.
Imo the Tpwd agency has been changed for the worse over the past decade or so. Good wardens like Boone have retired early for good reason. While some problem wardens like Daniel Diaz were left on duty after multiple problems over many years.
Imo the Tpwd agency has been changed for the worse over the past decade or so. Good wardens like Boone have retired early for good reason. While some problem wardens like Daniel Diaz were left on duty after multiple problems over many years.
Invited a GW out to ranch to pursue a poacher a while back. Got to a gap between properties, back yard n the low fence days, and it had chain and lock that I had seen opened by Grampa one time in my life. GW pulls out a key ring about the size of a dinner plate and commences to go thru it. after about 3-4 tries, he finds the correct one.
Kind of amazing and kind of scary.
Kind of amazing and kind of scary.
Agreed on the checks of police power. I've got no issues with this bill being vetted. It actually seems the legal process is being followed in an appropriate manner here. It'll be interesting to see where the chips fall.
Deerdude said:
Invited a GW out to ranch to pursue a poacher a while back. Got to a gap between properties, back yard n the low fence days, and it had chain and lock that I had seen opened by Grampa one time in my life. GW pulls out a key ring about the size of a dinner plate and commences to go thru it. after about 3-4 tries, he finds the correct one.
Kind of amazing and kind of scary.
A friend's family had a ranch near Falfurrias. They were doing the same. They had a key ring with multiple keys, and they watched their Game Warden pick the lock even before they could pull the key ring out. This was back in the 1980s. He said their Game Warden was pretty stealthy to the point the he would sneak up on them without disturbing hunts. They had a good relationship with him because they were actively managing their deer population and also had a problem with poachers. Sad to hear that bad Game Wardens have ruined this level of trust
Wodanaz said:InfantryAg said:
Game wardens conduct inspections. Inspections that you agree to when you get a hunting/ fishing license. This means anytime you are engaged in a hunting or fishing activity, you can be inspected and anything you have that is used for the activity can also be inspected. Coolers, trucks, guns; Not your home.
If you didn't agree by getting a license, then you are in violation for not having the license to start with.
Wildlife belong to the people of Texas, not to you, or any other individual. The state is tasked with managing these assets for the citizenry. Unfettered hunting is why animal populations dwindle. Black bears were hunted out of Texas in the 50's. These public resources must be protected and managed.
The public can't come onto your land to check the public property (the wildlife), just like the public can't stop you for speeding on the public roadways. That is delegated to law enforcement on behalf of the public.
No one hear has ever been on property with an easement? Having state (the citizens) owned property on your land is the same as having powerlines or a pipeline across your land; There is essentially an easement. If ercot needs to inspect the powerlines, they don't need a warrant. If your land is on the border, USBP doesn't violate the 4th Amendment when they're on that land.
The 4th Amendment protects you against UNREASONABLE searches. Why is "unreasonable" the word that is included? Why doesn't it say "ALL" searches or just leave it at "searches?"
Who defines what is reasonable? The US Constitution says the Supreme Court is who interprets and has the final say.
The courts have factored in what is not very intrusive to what is very intrusive. Plain view, cars, open field are not as intrusive as curtilage. Searching a person or someone's home is extremely intrusive and will require much more to be considered "reasonable" under the 4th Amendment.
Because game are property of the citizens, the courts have found that it is reasonable for the people who are tasked with protecting them, to go where they can protect them, so long as they are reasonable, ie. not too intrusive. A warden can't just come to your house on a hunch and start checking your freezers, that is unreasonable.
Some wardens, like any LE, are not good, the same as any profession. Every agency has stories of the
Mansplaining the justification of government overreach to the OB and peak bootlicking to kick off the weekend is a bold strategy, Cotton.
I just stated the legal facts based on what the Constitution says. I didn't even include my opinion on it. Remember the saying "facts don't care about your feelings."
Following the Constitution is bootlicking. Do you pay property taxes, have a drivers license etc? Aren't you then "bootlicking?"
Not if I do it in protest and don't come on the internet to justify their necessity filled with long-winded drivel and logical fallacy. Carry on.
That's definitely a stretch, naming "things" (driver's license and paying property tax) as bootlicking. Both those carry the weight of loss of property, as well as life, if the "boot" considers you resisting/refusing compliance. That's the very definition of coercion.
Government is force. Without force, government has no authority or power.
Limiting government's use of force seems to me to be the consensus among those of us submitting remarks advocating consideration of the proposed legislation this thread references.
Government is force. Without force, government has no authority or power.
Limiting government's use of force seems to me to be the consensus among those of us submitting remarks advocating consideration of the proposed legislation this thread references.
Good.
GSS said:
"No one hear has ever been on property with an easement? Having state (the citizens) owned property on your land is the same as having powerlines or a pipeline across your land; There is essentially an easement. If ercot needs to inspect the powerlines, they don't need a warrant. If your land is on the border, USBP doesn't violate the 4th Amendment when they're on that land."
Your "easement" example is not even remotely the same, as the current GW authority. Easements are defined in scope, and likely represent a small percentage of a property...and any decent easement agreement does not allow for access to property outside of the easement.
It is a de-facto easement based on subject matter jurisdiction.
Not exactly the same, but works the same as any other easement, insofar as a non land owner has legal access to a piece of land, for the sake of access to their property (powerlines, game or any other property).
There is no Constitutional violation.
Soverign citizens would say your bootlicking.
It's just a tired, overused, emotional ad-hominem attack.
The same people who purport to love the Constitution, don't even know what the Constitution says.
It's just a tired, overused, emotional ad-hominem attack.
The same people who purport to love the Constitution, don't even know what the Constitution says.
sovereign = supreme in rank or authority
citizen = person who legally belongs to a country and has the rights and protection of that country
Sovereign citizen is an oxymoronic term, at least. Only applicable to those who make and/or enforce "the law".
Are you an authority in tired, overused, emotional ad hominems?
citizen = person who legally belongs to a country and has the rights and protection of that country
Sovereign citizen is an oxymoronic term, at least. Only applicable to those who make and/or enforce "the law".
Are you an authority in tired, overused, emotional ad hominems?
The concept up for debate is open fields doctrine. But there is quite a bit of gray area. The interpretation of the 4th amendment is that your protection from unlawful search includes the house and adjoining land that is within an enclosure (including a fence) or otherwise protected from public scrutiny. That last sentence is the debate and why many find it reasonable to believe that fenced property and out of public view should be provided 4th amendment protection. I am one of them. And many states agree and closed that gray area out with their own constitutions.
Landowners (ranchers/farmers) are people of Texas too. They provide habitat, food and water for the wildlife. To presume (as you seem to be) that without unfettered access to ALL private property, the resource is seriously threatened, and subject to excessive abuse and exploitation is not supported by the historical record. I can assure you that was NOT the attitude of GWs of old (I grew up in the 50's-60's). These men felt a kinship with the ranchers and farmers they served, and the feeling was mutual. Attitudes have indeed changed over time, and not for the better, encouraged by a growing resentment/jealousy from the hunting public.Quote:
Wildlife belong to the people of Texas, not to you, or any other individual. The state is tasked with managing these assets for the citizenry. Unfettered hunting is why animal populations dwindle. Black bears were hunted out of Texas in the 50's. These public resources must be protected and managed.
I hafta assume you are not a rural landowner.
Why do we even have limits on whitetail? Aren't we wildly overpopulated with them?
If you did a cross reference map of places where we have more poaching and areas where the bag limits are tighter with fewer doe permits due to smaller populations, they would likely line up pretty closely. One or two groups of determined poachers can make a big impact on populations in an area. Take away their bag limits and they would do even more damage I am sure.Bradley.Kohr.II said:
Why do we even have limits on whitetail? Aren't we wildly overpopulated with them?
Nature has a way of balancing that, left alone.Bradley.Kohr.II said:
Why do we even have limits on whitetail? Aren't we wildly overpopulated with them?
You assume wrong about me being a landowner.BoerneGator said:Landowners (ranchers/farmers) are people of Texas too. They provide habitat, food and water for the wildlife. To presume (as you seem to be) that without unfettered access to ALL private property, the resource is seriously threatened, and subject to excessive abuse and exploitation is not supported by the historical record. I can assure you that was NOT the attitude of GWs of old (I grew up in the 50's-60's). These men felt a kinship with the ranchers and farmers they served, and the feeling was mutual. Attitudes have indeed changed over time, and not for the better, encouraged by a growing resentment/jealousy from the hunting public.Quote:
Wildlife belong to the people of Texas, not to you, or any other individual. The state is tasked with managing these assets for the citizenry. Unfettered hunting is why animal populations dwindle. Black bears were hunted out of Texas in the 50's. These public resources must be protected and managed.
I hafta assume you are not a rural landowner.
You are also putting words in my mouth. I didn't share my opinion, just explained what the laws are, per the Constitution. If people choose to use feelz, rather than facts, that's on them.
I expressly said there is no unfettered access to all property. Wardens can reasonable access where they need to to carry out their lawful duties.
Why did black bears disappear from Texas in the 50s? Why are there no Grizzly's in California (although it's on their state flag)?
Why does every state regulate these activities?
Maybe deer wouldn't be over-hunted today, but IMO that's because less people hunt and land owners have a financial incentive not to. A multi million dollar industry that the wardens are also protecting. Poaching on someone's land often/ usually isn't done by the owner.
Over-fishing is a much more obvious area of abuse.
I agree open fields is a gray area. I don't feel comfortable with it.DannyDuberstein said:
The concept up for debate is open fields doctrine. But there is quite a bit of gray area. The interpretation of the 4th amendment is that your protection from unlawful search includes the house and adjoining land that is within an enclosure (including a fence) or otherwise protected from public scrutiny. That last sentence is the debate and why many find it reasonable to believe that fenced property and out of public view should be provided 4th amendment protection. I am one of them. And many states agree and closed that grey area out with their own constitutions.
It also is moot for a warden because they must have access as a part of their duties.
IMO, a regular cop, not tasked with managing game, doesn't have a reasonable need to be on private property without probable cause, or at least reasonable suspicion that a crime is actually occurring at that time, and it isn't feasible to get a warrant (exigency).
That's actually what the last sovereign citizen I arrested said. He claimed to be an "American National," and that sovereign citizens were idiots.wai3gotgoats said:
sovereign = supreme in rank or authority
citizen = person who legally belongs to a country and has the rights and protection of that country
Sovereign citizen is an oxymoronic term, at least. Only applicable to those who make and/or enforce "the law".
Are you an authority in tired, overused, emotional ad hominems?
He also claimed to be traveling and didn't need registration, insurance or a drivers license.
He would definitely call you guys boot lickers.
I don't have to be an authority, I can see when someone can't refute the facts I post and instead try to turn any discussion into the youtube comments section.
No problem with that. The states can set their own laws for management.wai3gotgoats said:
That's definitely a stretch, naming "things" (driver's license and paying property tax) as bootlicking. Both those carry the weight of loss of property, as well as life, if the "boot" considers you resisting/refusing compliance. That's the very definition of coercion.
Government is force. Without force, government has no authority or power.
Limiting government's use of force seems to me to be the consensus among those of us submitting remarks advocating consideration of the proposed legislation this thread references.
Regardless, there is no 4th Amendment violation. I simply explained why wardens are lawfully allowed to do what they do. Attacking the messenger doesn't change the message.
Featured Stories
See All
FINAL from Davis: No. 3 Florida 4, No. 4 Texas A&M 2 (Sunday)
by Mathias Cubillan
5 Thoughts: No. 22 Texas A&M 66, Louisiana State 52
by Luke Evangelist
Nolanmo13
Weigman "survived" Last Season on Toradol Shots - CBS
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
117
FarmerFran
Weigman "survived" Last Season on Toradol Shots - CBS
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
53