Contributors to this thread:
Ca Dept of F&W +HSUS
A friend of mine had his wallet stolen that had his hunting license and all his tags in it. He went in and got duplicate tags and license. He was out hunting and 6 wardens came in on his truck. They had placed a tracking device on his truck because they said it raised red flags that anyone would do that. Things went bad from there. There’s a court case coming up so I won’t bring up anything other than to say he got out of the truck to go after a bear and forgot his wallet in the truck. Charged with 3 felonies and 2 misdemeanors. I used to keep all that in my pack but there have been times when I’ve dropped my pack to stalk something. At this point according to wardens here I’m considered a poacher and will be charged accordingly. If I shoot an animal without my license and tags on me the moment I touch that animal here’s what can happen. Charged with hunting without a license Charged with hunting without a tag Poaching Possession of a poached animal. There’s serious felonies right there that will prevent you from hunting anywhere for years, ever owning a firearm. 5 figure attorney fees And trophy fee fines if convicted. Also if that tag is not put in immediately onto the animal after killing you can be charged with that. It does not matter if it’s filled out. I’m guilty of this. The brain isn’t thinking rationally hen you first get that animal. Some wardens will understand but look out, there’s some new people out there. If the would happen to charge you with any of those felonies, your families cell phones and ALL computers confiscated as evidence. Any pictures of untagged animals will be assumed Poached. My friend was told that there are own two types of people that have pictures of animals on their phones, Poachers or Extremists. Sounds just like a HSUS brain washed comment. All of this sounds like a fairy tale but trust me it’s not. I’ve not contacted my friend often because they still have his phones a month latter. This isn’t the first case that has been extreme. I have a man I know in Eureka that’s a criminal attorney that has taken in cases for free against Fish and Wildlife. He says they have a very strange interpretation of the law. One was back when dogs were used for bear. One of a guys Dogs was mauled. They shot the bear and he immediately went to trying to say his dogs life. A warden showed up and cited him for not tagging a bear and illegal possession of an untagged animal.
This (the HSUS) is the organization that the DFG has teamed up with, and Foley thinks it’s just fine. In her own words, Foley said, “We are again very grateful to the Humane Society of the United States for their support of the wardens’ efforts to combat the increase in poaching. We look forward to continued collaboration on this issue.” And now, HSUS has actual law enforcement officers here in California, trained at the DFG Training Center at Butte College in Paradise, and some of those officers are actual instructors, teaching DFG wardens!
How can someone who is hired by an animal-rights group, and believes animals have the same rights as humans, be teaching a Fish and Game enforcement officer? According to one attendee in one of the classes, the instructor showed a photo of hounds chasing a wild boar and said it was “animal cruelty”—until some in the class reminded the instructor that it was legal.
What the HSUS has done here is buy the DFG and its support for a few thousand dollars. The DFG recently issued a news release that was headed, “Department of Fish and Game and the Humane Society offer Reward for Mountain Lion Poachers.” That in itself is very troubling, that the DFG is lending its name and credibility to an animal-rights, anti-hunting group. What’s worse is that HSUS is given a form of credibility by that, when they are not at all a credible organization, at least not in the eyes of sportsmen and women.
Sportsmen should be afraid that there are actually HSUS law enforcement officers now in California, acting as “special investigators” under penal code section 830, and apparently under the auspices of the DFG.
The DFG is a state agency responsible for the fish and wildlife of California and is funded in great part by the sale of fishing and hunting licenses to sportsmen and women in California. They, and all Californians who believe that fish and wildlife should be managed by sound scientific and biological principles, should be infuriated that such an element as HSUS, which does not believe in such principles, should be associated with a state agency such as the DFG.
The partnership should end, and it should end now
I hope there’s more to the story. Hard to believe, even for California.
The HSUS has California by the balls. The HSUS has infiltrated the fish and wildlife department by osmosis. California is a lost cause IMO. The same cancer is spreading into my home state of Arizona with there no kill Bobcat and Mt. Lion ballot initiative. The word is CALIFORNICATION !
Yep. All the pro hunting and conservation guys either left fish and game or were pushed out. HSUS followed. If you don’t think it will happen in almost every state in the country at some point you’re delusional. Big cities control the votes!
Pat I will post the whole story when his case is over.
I sent a text to him to make sure that his attorney finds out when and where the gps locator was put on. They have to have a search warrant to install it if it’s done on private property. I have a fiend in the Bay Area that collects skulls and different bones. He called USF&W about picking marine mammal skulls up. He said as long as they aren’t endangered or on state property he could. So out on one of the tidal areas was a small dead grey whale floating. He got some of the bones off it. Fish and Wildlife came in and confiscated part of his collection that was perfectly legal and some others put them on the ground and crushed them. Went to court and was accused of killing the whale to get the bones. Never was reimbursed for the damage they did or was given back what they took. The Usfw warden said if he had any issues call him. He said the two agencies didn’t see eye to eye on a lot of legal issues.
Same as Pat. I find this hard to comprehend and would love to hear how it works out. It scares the heck outta me.
You guys remember the story of the F&G panel member that legally shot a Mtn lion in Idaho...and was run out because of it [the short story] The replacement appointee is a bunny hugger.....its no wonder Ca is such a hot mess.
The pictures on your phone comment---really? That is ridiculous.
This sounds really fishy... I suspect there's way more to this story your friend is not telling you. Those license crimes are not felonies... Ed F
You also need a search warrant to attach a tracker to a vehicle.........which requires probable cause that a crime has been committed......yup, there's more to this story.
You sure about that bohuntr? I know in california the fish and game officers can search your house without a search warrant.
Most Fish and Game officers have more search and seizure rights/ authority than any other law enforcement agencies in the US... I kindly suggest you guys read the game laws in your states, and what it says when you sign your licenses and tags, it may surprise you as to what they can "legally" do! In most cases, they can search your person, backpack, vehicle and tent/ trailer whatever, they can also seize any and all of the above including weapons for even a slight offense. And they don't always have to have "probable cause" only a suspicion that a crime may have bee committed. The exact wording in a lot of these laws is very tricky and you need to read them very carefully.
God Bless brothers, be safe and careful out there!
"You sure about that bohuntr? I know in california the fish and game officers can search your house without a search warrant."
Yes, I,m sure, and no they can't.
CA F&W wardens do NOT have MORE authority than any other law enforcement officer in the state when it comes to enforcing laws and/or applying search and seizure issues. What is in place (like most states) for F&W codes is essentially the 'terms and conditions' you agree to when you buy a license for the privilege to hunt and/or fish. It is covered in state statutes that govern such activities. Ever wonder why a game warden immediately asks if you've been hunting when they stop you or you pull into a mandatory check point?
wow. It appears that CA is lost. There has to be more to this story though, as it seems way over the top, even for CA.
BOHNTR is correct. Securing a tracking device requires a warrant with a judge's signature. There is a lot more to this story.
In some instances, game wardens may actually have more power than police officers when it comes to warrantless searches of persons or vehicles. Taken from a law Website.
There maybe more but this is what I know. Typically, police officers must have probable cause or consent to search a person or a vehicle without a warrant. A 2012 California Supreme Court case found that even when a game warden lacks reasonable suspicion that a person has violated an applicable fish or game statute or regulation, they may still stop the suspect's vehicle and demand the suspect display any fish or game in the suspect's possession.
DL, The California Supreme Court case you cite found that the game warden had probable cause. The fisherman was observed from a distance fishing, placing the catch in a black bag, and subsequently lied about fishing when pulled over - thus, probable cause that a fish and game violation had been committed. A quick google search provides a very nice summary of the 38 page court ruling.
"In some instances, game wardens may actually have more power than police officers when it comes to warrantless searches of persons or vehicles. Taken from a law Website. There maybe more but this is what I know. Typically, police officers must have probable cause or consent to search a person or a vehicle without a warrant. A 2012 California Supreme Court case found that even when a game warden lacks reasonable suspicion that a person has violated an applicable fish or game statute or regulation, they may still stop the suspect's vehicle and demand the suspect display any fish or game in the suspect's possession."
I'm sorry, but they do not. Folks, there are only three exceptions to the Fourth Amendment for ANY/ALL law enforcement officers in this country. In a nutshell they are; 1. Consent (by someone in legal standing) 2. Exigent Circumstances (destruction or concealment of evidence, transitory issues, danger, etc.) 3. Court Order (Search warrants, kick out orders, etc.) . That's it.
I would challenge anyone here to cite (credible source) the legal statute and/or case law that documents (allows) game wardens to have more 'power' in this area. It simply does not exist. But if it does and I am incorrect, please post it, as my power-point presentation in this area will need to be updated prior to my next block of instruction.
What does exist is the average game warden's knowledge of their respective codes (state titles and statutes specifically for Fish and Game resources ) and what they allow and/or govern. Additionally, they (game wardens) know and understand the Penal Code, Vehicle Code, Health and Safety Code, and Business & Professions Code. All other law enforcement officials could do the same thing......however, most are not intimately familiar with their respective state's Fish & Game Code and how to legally apply it, as it is not their primary job. This is where I believe most people perceive that game wardens have more 'authority or power' than other law enforcement officials. When actually, knowledge is their power. JMO
“Fleet testified that he did not "necessarily" suspect Maikhio of a crime because he had no way of knowing whether the man had been fishing legitimately or not. Regardless, Fleet waited until Maikhio had driven away from the pier to stop him. “
This is from Calguns website.
a DFG checkpoint on my way out.
They were stopping all vehicles on the highway and I was stopped along with everyone else.
There were about 8 DFG officers at the checkpoint and I was lucky enough to be approached by the most senior officer.
He asked if I had been hunting and I responded affirmatively. He asked if I had taken a deer and I replied that I had not.
Then he ordered me to pull off the highway so that my vehicle could be searched. I had nothing to hide and so I followed his command.
He asked for my license and tags, which I provided. As he was checking my papers, a young, female DFG officer appeared at the passenger window and pointed to the door lock, motioning for me to open the door, but I ignored her and focused on the obviously more calm and mature officer checking my paperwork. She also was obviously keeping her other hand on her sidearm.
Then he asked me to produce my rifle. I responded that it was locked in a gun case behind my seat, so he ordered me to take it out of my truck and let him examine it.
I gave him the gun case keys and he opened the case on my tailgate while I watched. He removed my rifle and opened the chamber to verify that it was unloaded.
He also asked where my ammo was stored, and I told him that it was locked in a separate container. He didn't check for this, but the younger female officer walked over and repeatedly asked me if I was carrying any other weapons, and each time I replied negatively.
Not understanding what your point is on your last post, DL?
DL, I posted the case summary below. As shown, the warden had probable cause to suspect the person committed a violation and was supported as such by the Court. It also, clearly states he observed the person fishing with a handline. Don't get me wrong I appreciate the discussion started on this post and your point, there are times where wardens get it wrong also. But, getting something wrong on an individual warden level is way different from being above the law and the 4th Amendment.
Justia Opinion Summary Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence, a spiny lobster, obtained by a game warden on the ground that the warden had engaged in an unconstitutional search and seizure in stopping defendant's car a few blocks from a pier where the warden had observed, through a spotting telescope, defendant fishing with a handline. At issue was whether a game warden, who reasonably believed that a person had recently been fishing or hunting, but lacked reasonable suspicion that the person had violated an applicable fish or game statute or regulation, could stop a vehicle in which the person was riding to demand that the person display all fish or game the person had caught or taken. The court held that when, as in this case, the vehicle stop was made reasonably close in time and location to the fishing or hunting activity, the encroachment upon an angler's or hunter's reasonable expectation of privacy resulting from a brief vehicle stop and demand was nonetheless rather modest, and no more intrusive than other actions by game wardens that have been upheld in past California cases. In weighing the special need of the state to stop persons who choose to fish or hunt in the state and to demand such persons display all fish or game that had been taken against the intrusion upon such persons' reasonable expectation of privacy entailed by such a stop and demand, the court held that the vehicle stop and demand at issue constituted a reasonable procedure under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals upholding the suppression of evidence obtained by the game warden and subsequent dismissal of the charges against defendant.
The purpose was to show what can happen. Was this legal? It probably isn’t but it happens. Most of us assume that LE would not do anything that isn’t legit. At times they will push beyond what is legal. Silence is consent. That was told to me by a friend that spent 30 years as a deputy. My wife worked for the probation Dept for a number of years. Been on ride alongs with sheriffs Dept where known druggies were pulled over with no probable cause and car searched. I’ve said this many times that hunters need to purchase a fish and Wildlife code book in the state they hunt. What is given out to us when we buy a license is just A fraction of the codes and laws that affect us.
I can tell you that what you posted (Calguns) is 100% legal and appropriate.
Roy was the females actions apporopriate?
When government gets to the point that it becomes tyranny, that is when the second amendment becomes so important. There is a reason why some want it gone, and it has nothing to do with mass shootings. My Polish relatives lived in a country with no guns, at least owned by them. That is how many of them ended up in Auchwitz.
Kevin @ Wisconsin's Link
does not surprise me...... it is sad, what has happened to a beautiful state, and I started off their, working for the forestry division for the state, in the early 70's. This is in my opinion is what is coming to Montana,,,,,, don't laugh, Montana is a big target for them, just look who is moving in, and getting on the boards
I left The People's Republic of Kalifornia several years ago because of the political idiocy, but something about that story still seems fishy. I'm looking forward to hearing "the rest of the story."
Montana is being infiltrated by the liberal agenda. Unfortunately hunters in many states support ballot box game management, there are far more voters than hunters and trappers who vote. The liberals will diminish hunting and trapping with a multifaceted attack and a long term objective. Montana hunters are easily duped by these groups, such as the Prairie Foundation. Duped, duped and duped some more.
I’m taking sides with the two BO(W)HNTRS, Ed and Roy, here. They would know. Both have vast experience executing thorough strip searches of other hunters. Something ain’t adding up here.
And DL, I see nothing wrong with your highway checkpoint experience. The female may have been a little over zealous, but not violating any rights.
I don’t like the fact that HSUS has got their fingers in F&W. We had two wardens talk to our Taxidermy Association three years ago. They know there are things going on that they don’t agree with but publicly can’t say anything about it because of be government employees. That’s unfortunate that they can’t. Nate I agree that something Doesn’t add up the more I have gone over this but I haven’t personally talked one on one. Since F&W still has his phones I only have received texts. Roy why would his guns and bow be confiscated from his Home pryor to going to court? Guilt or innocence has not been ruled on yet. I could understand taking the rifle on the original arrest to maybe do a ballistic check but a shotgun or bow? Just would like to know the reason those things are done, that’s all. Another question regarding tagging animals. Could a hunter be cited for not tagging an animal while taking pictures of it? I know it states Immediately and not after you take pictures.
Evidence in a crime... that your buddy may have not told you or anyone about. If they had a tracking device on his vehicle there's way more to this story. I guess you could be cited for not tagging an animal immediately... I would guess that is just another small piece of this puzzle. All... just my opinion about what you told us. Ed F
LE officers can ASK you to hand over weapons, open the trunk, step out of the car, how much you drank, where you are headed, if you were hunting, etc, etc. That doesn't mean you always have to obey or answer. The context is what matters.
Ed, Roy have you heard of this group? I know the head of our F&W commission spoke at there fundraiser in Carmel several years ago per CBH bulletin.
Fully aware of that group... but I don't think it has anything to with your friends case. CA F&W objective and direction is a totally different conversation... Ed F
"I don’t like the fact that HSUS has got their fingers in F&W."
I agree with you 100% here! It's a scary situation.
Ed addressed the seizure of weapons prior to any conviction. Items that are deemed as evidence to a crime are seized to support those allegations.....this ALWAYS occurs prior to any conviction. If found not-guilty those evidentiary items are often returned to the owner (court order if seized by a search warrant), providing they are not illegal to posses in the first place.
As for taking pictures PRIOR to tagging the animal, technically, yes, you could be cited. The statute specifically states that you must immediately tag the animal once you locate it. For those that like to take photos without a gaudy 2' long tag streaming off the head, I would suggest you fill out and notch your tag immediately.....have it out, and take your photos. Most wardens will apply the spirit of the law here......but most apply the letter of the law if it was never notched while you've been taking photos for 15-20 minutes. Just my experience.
Correct nothing to do. Have they showed up in your state yet? They want to stop all killing of predators.
I’m thankful for CBH that attends all of the F&W hearings. I tell everyone that comes to my shop if they bowhunt they need to join. We need people like these to represent us. All hunters need to wake up and join a conservation group that will stand up for us. Everything is at stake for us. These anti groups want our game managed by warm and fuzzy research not science based biology. I can’t imagine the frustration they face. I know at the recent Bighorn sheep hunt oriention I attended there were times when all the Bighorn sheep project director could do is smile and grit her teeth about some of the issues they deal with.
All laws concerning Wildlife...hunting...Furbearers...Taxidermy...Tanning...CITIES are all written to be ambiguous and are open to interpretation by the Wardens. They are NOT black and white and a crap hole state like Cali. you are considered GUILTY until proven innocent. A lot of Wardens use the phrase..."you are guilty of something...I just have to find it".
With the latest bill, at least Wisconsin got their woodchuck crisis solved.
I have been checked by Calif game wardens about 15 times in the last 40 or so years. They go through your boat or vehicle, throwing things around, trying to find SOMETHING to wright a ticket for. And no, I don't break any fishing or hunting laws....ever. Every single encounter started out with the wardens being arrogant, smart assed in their speech, and just plain PRICKS. I'm gone.
With ALL the crazy @ss things that California does and the mental state of many of it's residents, this is not surprising. Look what these idiots(Cali's) have done to Colorado by migrating here in the droves, If we don't do something soon here, we'll end up just like Socialist California.
Missouri is right,,,,, we have so called hunting legislators, and the Hunter Right Coalition, who just took away 3 weeks of the metro areas late season,,,, who needs the HSUS, hunters today, eat their own,,,,,,,,, A lot of guys are pissed.......
This comes from a Republican governor and legislator,,,,, what a joke,,,,, there all a..h....s
There will be more to this story once the judicial system concludes. For general information, The current Ca. fish and game commissioners leans more on conservation efforts than in the past 4 to 5 years. Unfortunately previous commissioners set forth some policy extremes. Animal groups also lobbied the legislature heavily and got the CDFG name changed to CDFW and several other laws changed or added under the Fish and Game Code but due to the state constitution the Commissions name stayed the same. Some of the information stated previously is a little exaggerated in regards to HSUS and wardens. Most of the confusion was a result of HSUS donating $5k to the warden K9 force. If you really want to know what the commission is doing go to their website and on the lower right corner of the main page click on 2017 or 2016 meetings. A schedule comes up, pick one of the dates and click on video. These are Cal Span recordings, suggest viewing public forum and any agenda item that interests you. Additionally there are related documents posted to view. rmoor