PDA

View Full Version : Game Warden....


CAL
10-11-2004, 07:24 PM
If a game warden had to get permission before entering property,how would he ever get anything accomplished?They are always welcome on my property anytime for whatever reason!What's everyones opinion?

bilgerat
10-11-2004, 07:30 PM
they are wolcome at our club anytime.

slimbo
10-11-2004, 07:32 PM
They dont have to have permission. And if they did, the only reason people wouldnt give them permission is if they're doing something wrong.

Toliver
10-11-2004, 07:33 PM
As long as he stays away from my still, we'll get along swimingly.

Woody
10-11-2004, 07:42 PM
:D :D :whip:

Jim Thompson
10-11-2004, 07:47 PM
I am ok with it anytime

Jim

Toliver
10-11-2004, 08:10 PM
I am ok with it anytime

Jim


So I guess you're waving at the Warden as he's pulling up into camp?

BROWNING7WSM
10-11-2004, 08:17 PM
I have no problem with him showing up ....

short stop
10-11-2004, 08:39 PM
:speechles

sr.corndog
10-11-2004, 09:03 PM
welcome Sir! Care for a cup of coffee! :flag:

huntfish
10-11-2004, 09:35 PM
Welcomed anytime. :clap: Wan't a tour of the property? Stop by after work and we'll cook up some vittles.

sage954
10-12-2004, 07:40 AM
Just to throw a fly in the ointment. What about private property rights? Couldn't an argument be made that a warden cruising through private property just to "take a look" is a violation of the 4th Amendment?

I am thankful for the job wardens do catching poachers and cheaters. If I had any property, I would be much indebted to any game warden that removed trespassing poachers from it.

At the same time, I am extremely uneasy with any government agency being given the right to come on to my property at anytime they want and basically "go fishing" for something.

Donkeytoe
10-12-2004, 07:49 AM
Intersting point about the 4th ammendment. He's welcome at my place but as long as he shows up midday so he doesn't walk through my lease and screw up the hunting. I've never had a Warden show while I was in a stand but if he did I would be upset, just like I would be if anybody else walked up on me while hunting. Lots of time and money invested for someone to ruin a weekend for me. Being from Florida, I may have to ask him to reimbuse me my gas money to drive up there and back. How do you think that would go over..... :bounce:

Randy
10-12-2004, 08:00 AM
I really have no problem with them stopping by to check things out but I do not like it when they choose to stop by right in the middle of my hunt. Walk up to me in the stand adn ask for my liscense. They should be considerate and they should only stop by if they have reason to believe something wrong is being done. There are enough wrongs going on that they don't need to visit my club that always follows the rules.

leo
10-12-2004, 08:02 AM
Just to throw a fly in the ointment. What about private property rights? Couldn't an argument be made that a warden cruising through private property just to "take a look" is a violation of the 4th Amendment?

I am thankful for the job wardens do catching poachers and cheaters. If I had any property, I would be much indebted to any game warden that removed trespassing poachers from it.

At the same time, I am extremely uneasy with any government agency being given the right to come on to my property at anytime they want and basically "go fishing" for something.

Doesn't Georgia law allow the DNR law enforcement to do just that, come on your property at will :confused:

I may be confused again, but I "seem" to recall, from a previous discussion, that DNR Law Enforcement personnel have powers that other LEO's do not have concerning property rights :confused: :confused:

As I said I may be off ( :confused: ) on this so please do not take it as gospel until you check the laws to be sure :)

leo

GeauxLSU
10-12-2004, 09:39 AM
Just like any other person, if they're good guys I'd LOVE for them to drop by. If they're going to be jerks (which obviously they have lots of potential if they've got the wrong attitude) then of course not. Those guys know what hunting is so they know how to mess up a hunt and know how do their job without messing one up.
While actually hunting I've met only ONE game warden in all my years of hunting. That was two years ago on a WMA in N. Georgia. Nice older gentlemen. He checked our licenses then went out of his way to try and get a question answered we had about releasing birds for dog training.

If I owned my own property (God willing one day I will ::; ) I would hope to be on a first name basis with the local officer and be able to call him for help anytime and vice versa. They've got to have the worst job in the world but I sure am glad they are out there doing it and if I can make part of it a little easier on them, great!

A warden can obviously be a great friend or a bad enemy. The choice is normally up to you. I suspect they'd prefer the friendship too.

Hunt/fish safely,
Phil

S.Dailey
10-12-2004, 09:43 AM
They are always welcome on our property. No matter what time it may be when they decide to come through. Our local warden even has a key to our gates. I can understand everyone's complaint about being checked while on stand and "ruining" your hunt. Look at it this way though, most hunters and violaters typically hunt in the mornings and evenings that's the best time for a warden to be out and hopefully catch these violaters. Other than catching them at night this is the ideal time to catch someone doing something wrong.

Randy
10-12-2004, 10:39 AM
Actually ruining your hunt is NOT the best time for them to catch violators. If they wait at the truck for you to come out or be there before you go in is the best time. Course that means they have to get up early. Unless they have reason to believe you are hunting over bait, there is no reason for them to visit you at your stand!

Carp
10-12-2004, 11:15 AM
As long as they don't disturb the bait piles. Just kidding folks. As long as they treat people kindly they are welcome anywhere.

Phillip Thurmond
10-12-2004, 12:16 PM
Several years ago on opening morning around 8 am the game warden came through our place in Washington Co and started checking people He would walk up to you ask you to climb down and check your hunting licience. I think that went way to far. I guess you have to take the good with the bad. No one on our club was in violation of anything so I really do not know what he was checking for.

sage954
10-12-2004, 01:59 PM
Just because courts have recognized, in essence "created", a certain doctrine does not make it right. Think about it, a government official can come on to your property, unsupervised, and hunt for criminal violations without your knowledge of their presence.

There should be a difference between what can be openly seen from a public through fare, which is what I believe this doctrine refers to, and actually progressing onto the property for some distance by way of a private drive. In my mind that is an ingression into an area that is not generally open to public view by legal means, i.e. without trespassing. Therefore, it should be expected to be afforded more privacy than a front yard in a neighborhood.

If I were lucky enough to have a large parcel of property it would be as sacrosanct to me as my home. I do not want anybody wandering around it that I do not know about or have given permission to.

Toliver
10-12-2004, 07:58 PM
I've noticed a few different opinions..

Randy: You mention the warden should only check clubs that are in violation and not yours. How would he know without checking?

Sage: Wardens do have exceptional powers above and beyond that of regular officers. Your property can be checked by the warden without permission and without a warrant. You have to remember, almost all of the violators the wardens deal with are armed in manner or another. Would YOU want those people to know you're coming?

I realize the 4th Amendment is sacred but there are exceptions. Whether your opinion is that the warden should or should not have the power is kind of irrelevant since they DO have the power. It's mighty hard for them to check clubs and properties that are in the hundreds of acres by riding the public roads and going off what they can see from there. Not much would get done and you would be overrun with poachers if they couldn't operate the way they do. So just suck up the minor inconveniences they will occasionally cause you and appreciate the MANY goods they do for you.

Buzz
10-12-2004, 08:16 PM
I don't see them very often and certinly don't mind it when they are nice people. However, some of them are not very nice and seem to "want" to catch you doing something. I mind all the rules and am more than happy to let him check my license, etc. especially if it is in camp. Even though he would be within his right, I would be a little ticked off if he were to make me come down from the stand and check my license in the middle of my hunt. As others have said, I have spent a lot of time and money cultivating my spot and wish to have an officer respect that as well.

JBowers
10-12-2004, 08:38 PM
The 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, ....

Persons, houses, papers and effects. Don't recall it saying anything about woods, fields, or real estate. It seems the amendment protects "people" not "places" (obvious exception is one's house/dwelling, then again is that an extension of protecting the person or the house?). I don't consider it reasonable for a person to demand privacy for acts (legal or illegal) committed outside in plain view, whether that viewer be there legally or not. The same as I don't consider it reasonable for a person to demand privacy from intrusion of air space over that persons real property. If my memory serves me correctly this has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme COurt and is known as the "open fields" doctrine.

Private property rights are not absolute and neither should they be. I don't recollect anywhere in the Constitution where private property rights (as in real property) are absolute. No person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property? Yes; however, it also says without due process of law. Private property shall not be take for public use? Yes; however, that too is conditional - without just compensation. In fact, that term "property" is only mentioned in the 5th and 14th amendments, as provided in the latter and former.

So, IMO the sound byte that one has a right (implied constitutional) to do whatever they want on their property is bunk and false. While it is true that one can do whatever they want, that action is not necessarily guaranteed or protected by the Constitution and not necessarily legal.

Randy
10-13-2004, 08:04 AM
Well, for one I can assure you we are legal. But he is also welcome to visit my property anytime during the off season to check for illegal activity. If he wants to check it during the season he is welcome also. If he will just wait at the truck until we come out from hunting, I will take him and show him everything he wants to see. I just don't think they should visit during hunting hours and just wonder around the property. As stated by some, some game wardens are great guys. But some seem to be trying to catch you at something. It is like they assume you are guilty until you can prove you are not. By visiting me in the stand he has assumed I am there doing something illegal. If he was not trying to catch me at it he would wait until I come out. The cop out here on teh street does not have the right to pull you over just to check your liscense neither should a warden have the right to visit you in your tree stand unless of course he has some reason to believe you are doing something wrong. Maybe tipped off or something.

Lucky Chandler
10-13-2004, 08:11 AM
Tommy,

You're finally right on one ... ;) - there is a diametrical difference between the "open fields" and your hunting cabin. The LE officer needed to have either 1) your consent to "look around", or a search warrant. Absent either of those, the search of the building would be patently illegal.

JBowers
10-13-2004, 08:19 AM
Tommy,

You're finally right on one ... ;) - there is a diametrical difference between the "open fields" and your hunting cabin. The LE officer needed to have either 1) your consent to "look around", or a search warrant. Absent either of those, the search of the building would be patently illegal.
There is your answer Tommy! I see Lucky is still alive!

sage954
10-13-2004, 08:22 AM
Just a couple of quick points.

1) The rights of the individual have alway been considered supreme in this country. This includes an individual's property rights.

2) If private property rights are not absolute, how can anyone be "secure in their person, papers, and effects".

3) According to the fifth amendment, only through the most stringent of judicial standards may one be deprived of the right to be in total control of how their property is used, who is welcome on it, and how it is dispensed. To me this is affirmation of the Constitution's recognition of the absolute nature of private property rights.

4) Private property rights does not make one immune to the consequences of engaging in illegal activities on that property.

5) No legislature or court should be able to arbitrarily "empower" any government agency with the "authority" to invade any person's property without any form of supervision.

hawghunter
10-13-2004, 09:16 AM
I got no problem with the game warden, the man has an important job to do, if he wants access to the land i am on, he is welcome to it.

Carp
10-13-2004, 11:27 AM
My Bro. in law is in law enforcement and he told me that he has dropped off the game warden at night, camoed up, face blacked out, etc. and the guy would sneak around looking over your place, then call him on the radio to pick him up wherever he had exited the property. Then on opening day he would walk up to the people in their stands and get them for baiting etc...

Randy
10-13-2004, 11:40 AM
I also had a friend that was putting out corn before turkey season (which I do not agree with). Anyway he made sure all the corn was gone at least 10 days before the season was to open. Opening morning he was hunting when in walks the warden. Tells him he is hunting over bait. To which my friend responded he was not. The warden says I was here a few weeks ago and there was corn on the ground. My friend says yes but it was gone at least 10 days before the season as the regs say. The game warden goes over to a rock, kicks it over and there was a couple pieces of corn under it? He was ticketed but the charges were dropped prior to court! As I said earlier, it appears some wardens are trying to catch you even when you are not or do not intend to do anything wrong.

JBowers
10-13-2004, 01:01 PM
Just a couple of quick points.

1) The rights of the individual have alway been considered supreme in this country. This includes an individual's property rights.

2) If private property rights are not absolute, how can anyone be "secure in their person, papers, and effects".

3) According to the fifth amendment, only through the most stringent of judicial standards may one be deprived of the right to be in total control of how their property is used, who is welcome on it, and how it is dispensed. To me this is affirmation of the Constitution's recognition of the absolute nature of private property rights.

4) Private property rights does not make one immune to the consequences of engaging in illegal activities on that property.

5) No legislature or court should be able to arbitrarily "empower" any government agency with the "authority" to invade any person's property without any form of supervision.
1) People, Yes; Property (as in 100 acres), No. That is an overgeneralization and exaggeration that is clearly not supported by law or the Constitution.

2) I disgaree. People not places, with the exception of that persons dwelling, which can be argues an extension of protecting the person. The record is clear on this.

3) I disagree. Based on what the 5th says, that may be a stretch: due process is not exactly stringent, and I see nothing about total control implied or mentioned. Warrants and probable cause are not required to search private property (e.g. 2, 5, 50, 1000 acres).

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If it were an affirmation of some perceived absolution then such would not be conditional of which it clearly is. Once again, the suggestion or idea of private property rights (e.g. one's 40 acres delineated by a political boundary) appears only in the 5th and 14th amendments and with conditions attached, not in the Constitution proper.

4) Very true.

5) That power resides with the People as presrcibed in the Constitution thereby vested and exercised through their legislatures and Congress. Courts don't empower agencies; federal agencies are established and empowered through Congress and state agencies are established and empowered through Legislatures and these occur through the expressed desire of the People through the power the Constitution provides the people. The invasions protected through the Constitution are those of your person, papers and effects and in an effort to ensure those specific protections extends to your dwelling/house/structures. However, those can be invaded through proper procedures (e.g. search warrants or your permission). And this doesn't apply to open property, such as ones 2, 20, 40 or 100 acres. If I remember correctly, and I maybe wrong, open fields is just not specific to conservation officers, but to law enforcement officers in general.

In my opinion, to claim that one's actions in his backyard are somehow constitutionally protected also implies that when his neighbor observes those activities, then his neighbor has somehow violated that person's constitutional rights.

IMO, it is very unreasonable for a person to demand privacy for activities conducted outside. Because it would also be unreasonable to demand that passerbys, legal or illegal, be restricted to not viewing their surroundings or looking others in the eye for sake of violating anothers rights. That is why it is unreasonable.

Someone is walking in their neighborhood. While passing another's house they happen to look into the window of a house and see another couple engaging in relations. Has anyone rights been violated? What if they are on the porch? in the front yard? backyard? Obviously, some are of that opinion.

sage954
10-13-2004, 06:30 PM
Mr. Bowers,
I do not want to get into an extended debate in this forum with you on private property rights. Obviously we are on differents sides of the argument, but both honestly believe in our positions. These are my final few points.

1) Courts either empower or limit the power of agencies by how they interprete laws and by what legal doctrines they determine are valid. Just because a court says something is permisable does not make it correct in the larger ethical, moral, philosophical, or human rights realm. All it does is give it the legitimizing stamp of law.

2) Acts passed by the legislature does not mean that act is automatically the will of the people.

3) The power of the people is not vested in the legislature. The legislature is vested with certain limited powers by the people. The people's power is completely seperate and indepent of any govermental body. It is a seperate entity unto its self. The 10th amendment supports this assertion. It is in this realm that I believe private property rights resides.

4) In your examples of why a person cannot expect privacy outside, all of the activities are taking place outside within view of public areas. In an area that is viewable from area's in the public domain I agree that one cannot expect any real degree of privacy. This a completely different situation than someone leaving the public domain and traveling onto your property to get a look at something you are doing that is not in any way observable from the public domain. In this situation you should be able to expect a large degree of privacy. That person coming onto your property to observe you is trespassing and is a lawbreaker.

5) I agree that one can not expect the same degree of privacy in the front yard of their 1/4 acre subdivision lot as in their home, because, the whole area can be observed from public through fares. I believe the Supreme court even specified that the difference in expected privacy was different between an open to the public front yard and a fenced to the public backyard. The former having a greater degree of expected privacy than the latter. In my opinion the center of a wooded 10,000 acre property should be afforded a greater expectation of privacy than an open field easily observed from a public road. How would you feel if you were minding your own business in reading a book in your fenced back yard and suddenly a LEO climbed over your fence and began asking you questions about your activities. When you protest he points out that according to doctrine long supported by the supreme court he is well with in his rights to have invaded your personal property. In my opinion a government official driving 2 miles down a private drive just to see if something illegal is happening, is just as offensive as one coming to my door and pushing their way through into my home.

6) The government my give the stamp of law to something but that does not make it right, nor does it mean that we should just accept it.

7) The correct way to make the wardens job easier would be for property owners to personally give them permission to patrol their land. Not for the government to just take that right. If a property owner is leasing land to a group and wants to make sure that nothing illegal is taking place, or if a land owner thinks that trespassers are poaching, then they would simply sign a limited power of attorney giving the agency the right to enter his/her property at will. That agency simply taking this right through legislative action or court recognized doctrine is not right.

Vectorman
10-14-2004, 05:08 PM
Give this a try. Call your local game warden and give him a free membership to your club. Let him meet all your club members, take note of car tag numbers so he can watch out for trespassers. He can even check everybodys license at once. I'll bet he will give everybody his cell number so you can get in touch with him in a hurry if you need to. Just ask him to pin his stand location like everybody else. I don't think you will ever have a problem with him walking up on you during prime time hunting hours.

Vectorman

HT2
10-15-2004, 12:31 AM
They are welcome to come......

They just need to "call" first...... :D :D :D

gtaff
10-15-2004, 05:57 PM
If he can get through my high fence and corn piles come on in. LOL JK