Bowsite.com

The question revealed that the majority thought that this was a good idea and it should be changed.

Perhaps you voted on this?

A closer look however may very well upset those well behaved, rule following hunters as the new proposal, if ever brought to law, could be problematic.

In a recent conversation with our field Warden we spoke of this and our conversation enlightened me to potential problems for law enforcement.

If passed, the LEO working in the field, would have to be standing in very close proximity to the violator to see him launch an arrow any amount of minutes after close.

Our current law allows a warden to cite someone actively hunting after hunting hours close - a big difference.

I do not believe shooting hours would be beneficial to our law enforcement efforts.

Comments?

I got this answer form my local warden - If you are in your stand and your arrow is in your quiver or your rifle is unloaded you are not hunting.

I asked because I do not want my youth hunters getting out of the stand until an adult is there. They are instructed to unload their firearm or put the arrow in the quiver on their bow at the end of hunting hours.

There is no need to unload your gun or take your arrow off the string at the end of shooting time as you can have a loaded gun or bow at anytime you want as long as you're not hunting. I know most people load their gun at the truck so as to not make noise in their blind or stand at the begining of shooting time.

this change would be good

But a warden could certainly interpret that as hunting and a citation could be issued. At that point it will be up to the hunter to persuade a judge that they were not hunting.

If we had "shooting hours" a person could sit in their stand all night with a loaded weapon and they would only be breaking the law if they discharged that weapon during the no shooting hours.

This one sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Actually our current law allows wardens to cite someone for something they might do but really haven't done yet. Ridiculous. The way I understand "shooting hours" this would mean someone would actually need to violate before being cited. This sounds like a no-brainer to me too.

Everyone makes good points, there are so many reasons you could be in your stand late and leaving the determination as to your intent in the hands of a warden then a potentially biased judge just seems to go against the rules of law. My cars can easily go over the speed limit so should I be cited for speeding just because I might?

I like your car story, it's like we all have the equipment to be a rapist but were not.

the days spent in the field, were not done, to harass any hunters,,,,,

I think, that as the rules change, it will make it harder for our wardens, however from the wardens that I worked with, they were fair, and knew most everone was playing by the rules....

they gave a lot of latitude, during stops and investigations.......

this is based on experience with those I served with.....

I have seen officers just like wardens make bad cases, and those that do, believe me, are looked at hard, both by the DA office and supervisors......

I like the present system.

I could care less how they word it, much ado about nothing.

I have not and do not believe that the current law should be changed and here is my reasoning.

Everyone of us, pay and support the Warden force in this State in one way or another.

The State pays literally thousands of dollars in training costs, manpower costs and supervision efforts to keep and maintain our Warden force running in a balanced, effective and efficient manner.

At some point we need to listen to our law enforcement professionals and trust them to do what's appropriate and when it's appropriate.

Many here, support our Wardens and many here have spoken about the lack of manpower and the Warden's inability to do his/her job. This is largely due to the fact there is simply not enough wardens to go around.

If passed into law, it will do nothing but hamstring wardens and make their already difficult job, just that more difficult.

That my friends equates into more violations left unchecked, more deer poached illegally and violators left to win out over the many here that abide by the laws.

When a warden tells you that it will complicate his/her job or a law hinders their administration of his/her duties...believe them.

IF for any other reason, because the enforcement job pays the same whether they (wardens) arrest 10 violators or none - they have no stake in this.

None other than wanting to do a good job and be provided the tools to get the job done and done right!

Some here (Ron) tend or "believe" that some warden use this as a method of padding their citation counts and making decisions like loose cannons.

I disagree.

I work with these me and women on a regular basis and have been invited many times to assist in training scenarios for recruits.

We should continue to support these people along with their enforcement efforts in lieu of concocting "what if stories".

Ron's "vote of freedom" could be construed as nothing more than a vote for easier poaching abilities.

It's your State - you decide.

Should we trust our wardens or should we put our faith in the "what if" crowd?

I think our friend Mike Foss has a pretty good understanding on this issue.

I known where my vote stands! Support your local warden and his/her efforts!

Agree with Bloodtrail.

here it is in a nutshell..... I will get flamed for saying this, I do not care,,,,,,, I am not PC.....

This is the most anti dnr administration, in the state govt that I have ever seen, and I voted for the guy,,,,

just look who he put in charge,,,,,,,

Nothing personal my friend - but your wrong! Or maybe not "wrong" your "failing to understand fully.....perhaps"

I find it "funny" that you mention "rights and freedoms" because that is what that warden is doing - and truly what most of his/her job is about. He/she is protecting your right to hunt and the freedom to do it legally. They do it every day, day in and day out.

By weeding out the violators, those who choose to follow there own set of rules, it allows honest, law abiding sportspeople to enjoy there chosen sport and to have the game to do it with.

This "new law" or "new idea" hinders that process.

This law is not about you randomly sitting in a tree stand in July with your Grand Papa's double barrel 16 gauge and baying at the moon. If that's your "thing" I say go for it...just don't put up a tree stand in the dark!! (wink/wink)

Our current law allows for the Warden to make a discretionary decision, based upon his/her training and experience if someone is/has violated the hunting hours rule.

That's it.

What some folks want now, is for the warden to wait until the violator launches an arrow or discharges a firearm which, may or may not happen with the Warden in close proximity. Not to mention placing a warden potentially in harms way of a loose round or arrow may I add.

It's ridiculous really.

So Zinger - feel free to walk in the woods after supper and feel free to take hold of that trusty 16 gauge. It's all good my friend. Because of your truly not hunting (predator exception) you don't have a care in the world.

Rights and freedoms are everyone's concern Zinger - even those of us low life, coffee chuggin' donut eatin' cops!

Let me remind you first and foremost Ron, of my continued support for you over the years. When people accused me (taunted) me, of having a "man crush" I supported you on many topics. I still do.

Lets bring it down a notch shall we? :^)

And if I upset you I apologize to you. That was not my intent.

Clearly Ron, you've never been a warden. Nor have you completed any type of law enforcement certification or formalized school or training. You've never worked an 8 hour shift as a law man in any area of law enforcement. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

That doesn't mean your not entitled to your opinion, but your wrong on this one.

You write: "but the warden could cite me based only on his assumption of intent and the time on his watch"

And then you state: (referring to the new law) "It removes game warden “discretion” that allows him to cite a person just for being in an enclosed stand and the warden assuming he is a law breakers based on nothing more the time on the clock he was in the field."

A) Wardens write tickets on assumptions or "assumptions of intent" - which I (Pat) am not familiar with.

B) We should remove "discretion" with this new law.

I'm here to tell you Ron, Wardens do not write citations on "assumptions." Or even "assumptions of intent"

They do write citations on what is termed "clear and convincing" evidence however.

They, like any other law enforcement officers are required to explain the citation to his/her supervisor, Prosecuting Attorney and a Court of Law (Judge/Jury) if the matter goes that far at any level.

If its a criminal citation a higher threshold of law is required called "probable cause" it is necessary to make an arrest and issue a criminal citation.

The wording "assumption" never enters the picture and to claim that is being done is nothing less than a slap in the face because LEO do not write on assumptions Ron - "Assumptions" are like wet toilet paper in a wind storm.

You mentioned "discretion" Ron - Let's talk a little about "discretion".

First off - God bless you, me and Greyhound that Officers do have discretionary authority. Cannot imagine the field of law enforcement without it. In fact it's so important in legal circles they have a name for it. They refer to it as..... "discretionary authority".

As a LEO "discretion" allows me to make up my own mind as a trained professional about who or why I arrest someone. The ONLY person I am required by law to arrest is one involved with domestic violence. There the law is clear and the officer SHALL arrest the primary aggressor.

It also allows me to let someone off with a stern warning regarding a simple violation if I choose to. I don't have to write every stop sign ticket or speed violation.

Ron, I can exercise "discretionary authority".

It allows me the ability to make decisions about charging a person and what to charge a person with. It allows me to take into consideration the persons ability to understand what he/she did was wrong. The mental capacity of a person and one's ability to truly understand what has happened. It allows me the discretion to jail someone or simply request cash bail if I so desire.

If I sat longer and thought it through, you'd see just how huge "discretion" is in the field of law enforcement.

And your willing to take that away? You might say..."Well just for this law Pat". I counter with...it's a slippery slope my friend!

In closing Ron, for the record, I don't lie. I may get things a bit misconstrued... but I don't lie.

As for my time with the Conservation Congress Ron..... What I choose to do or not to do is between me, the County and it's residents I represent and the Congress and it's governmental body.

Outside of that I don't believe I need to offer up an explanation to anyone, even you on what I plan on doing or not doing.

If still interested, ya all can move up here and we can chat! :^)

My problem is what is the definition of hunting in the eyes of each warden? I can't tell you when someone is hunting if they're in the stand 30 minutes after dark or if they're just sitting there enjoying the night or waiting for deer to leave the area and with all due respect neither can a warden unless they see the person shoot or attempt to take an animal. This kind of goes with my old addage that it would make things much easier if police were allowed to search your house at anytime for any reason. That would sure help them and it would get rid of a lot of low lifes that I in no way support but it's still an invasion on one's rights.

Let me ask you this however.

Are you comfortable with my definition of lets say..... "disorderly conduct".

Your at a local bar...you have had your fill and your getting a little loud and obnoxious in the bar.

Now one might say your a "disorderly party" are you more comfortable with Deputy Razor's definition of what "disorderly conduct" is. Because your disorderly and he can arrest you.

OR

Maybe your more comfortable with Deputy Smith's interpretation of the law? He knows the law too.

How about that fat cop, Sgt. LaBarbera...do you like how he looks at the law?

Are you "concerned" about the way EACH deputy looks at disorderly conduct?

Which one Zinger?

The only way we would make your thought process work is we hired robots with computers for brains. Then everyone can think alike.

We are dealing with people however.

This is the best system we have to date. You can change laws, tweak laws and jump down, sit down and pick a bale of cotton if ya would like.....

Cops are people, but people trained to work as LEO. They have to meet requirements in their job just like everyone else. When you disagree, see a supervisor, the DA or plead your case in court.

Is it the best system? I don't know. Perhaps.....

What people, are forgetting is that this law has been on the books for many, many years.

What has changed? Can someone explain that to me? What the hell has changed people?

Nothing! Absolutely nothing!

There are no long lines in front of County Courthouses with people screaming and yelling because they were cited unfairly? Where is the outcry?

Again - if it's not broke - no need to fix it.

It works, has for many years. This is something I suspect is nearly as old as I am....

Thanks Zinger!

BT, I am here to tell you that I have a personal friend who was ticketed for this very thing. He was walking back to his truck with slugs still in his shotgun, after dark. He had never fired a shot that day yet the warden wrote him a ticket for hunting after hours.

He did go to court and won the case, but that was at his loss. His loss of a work day and his loss of his time, defending himself against a bogus charge.

Of course this is anecdotal but if you want to relate your personal experiences then I think you should consider the experiences of others.

Why has no one argued my point that making laws more clearly defined is beneficial to all? If we are to write all laws so that they make LE's job easier, then we should be in agreement with the anti gun people who claim that allowing no guns will stop gun related laws from being broken.

Next in line, governors on all vehicles that prevent those vehicles from exceeding 70 MPH. That list could go on and on...

I am glad this issue has come up. This will be a good one to pursue.

I fully agree with Bloodtrail and mentioned that, I am on the warden's side. Sorry I was too complex for you.

Of all the things we have to worry about in the hunting community we are concerned with protecting late bait/plot sitters, most who are hoping for that last deer in, the big buck. The VAST majority of late sitters are looking for an opportunity to violate to get their trophy.

This change will clarify the law and make the dnr wardens job easier.

Did the hunter shoot or not shoot after hours? Cite or not. Is much more clear cut than a warden citing a hunter for "hunting" because he sat in his stand for five minuets after legal because he didn't remove the arrow from his string as to not spook some deer.

This ^^^^^^

How many citations have you and your group received for hunting late Trapperjack?

Just curious?

In fact, outside of the Captain who has a "friend" that was cited how many here have received that citation?

How many here have even been checked for being late out of the stand. What was that outcome?

Please let me know - I would be interested.

Thanks!

Your "cherry picking" on me. Didn't want to talk about the discretion thingy or the burden of proof necessary to write a citation? Well OK then....

So you respond with " So............... Yeah, I think you already told us. Your on the WCC now. Your opinion now counts more than all those votes a few Monday nights ago. That's awesome."

You got one thing right - it's my opinion! Yes Ron, it's my opinion!

Now I still get to have one of those (opinion) don't I? I mean after being elected I don't have to sit in the corner drooling from my mouth with my eyes rolled back into my head...kinda like a dolt?

Is it OK to have an opinion Ron or do I somehow give that up? I would hope not!

Case and Point: At our last CDAC meeting I noticed that the majority of those that publicly responded to bonus tags thought the number was set to high from our original recommendation for the County.

Based upon the public input and my "opinion" I believed that they (public) very well may be correct.

I called for a motion on a reduction of tag numbers, which was seconded and passed unanimously. That recommendation has been forwarded for review.

So I may have an opinion, but that can be changed and I can take notice and call for change based on public input.

For you to insinuate that I have an "agenda" and "personal bias" is a load of horse crap Ron! I haven't even started and your already complaining.

How about, welcome aboard - good for you - Thanks for donating your time, need anything I can help with let me know!! Nope - haven't heard that yet!

The real sad part Ron is your a super intelligent person with some really good ideas. I at least believe that to be true.

Thanks!

Yep, I think the fine back then was 10.00 dollars! (LOL)

So in 25 years since, neither you or your brother were ever cited for hunting late?

Interesting?

Thanks!

"To put it simply if the law is changed, it will be legal to hunt after the end of shooting hours, but illegal to shoot. Sounds crazy to me. They would have to be practically on top of you to hear you shoot your bow"

Naz says: "Wardens I know don't go looking for guys sitting late, waiting for the deer to clear the area before they sneak back to the truck. They sit on known violators that they've received multiple tips on — and often have a prior history of disrespect for the law and those who enforce it."

Both of these gentlemen have a handle on what's transpiring.

Naz makes a very good point and he is 100% correct and my understanding with the wardens I interact with as well.

Kevin - Hyperbole or whatever - the bad guys win with this one. Call it what you want!

+1 Just because some of us believe this change would be a positive thing does not mean we dislike wardens or that we violate, or any other silly idea a few of you are trying to fabricate. Bloodtrail we all know where you stand on this issue you've repeated yourself several times. No matter how many times you say it I'm guessing you will not be successful in forcing any of us to agree with you.

Yes, but first let me say I have come across many wardens in the field in my 50 years of deer hunting and even more years of small game hunting. I have never been cited and all of them were doing what they were there to do and did it well. Except for...

It was late December back in the day of cased or unstrung bows after shooting hours. It was in Minnesota, just fyi so nobody thinks there was a bad warden in Wisconsin. Snow on the ground.

Three of us were deer bow hunting a frozen swamp on public land in the Mississippi bottoms. I shot at a nice 8 pointer while sitting on a bucket overlooking some deer trails in thick brush and swamp grass. As I shot to my left the bottom limb hit my leg and totally blew my concentration on the shot so I did not see the arrow in flight at all. It was getting close to quitting time, half hour after sunset back then. I looked and looked for sign of blood and the arrow. The area was FULL of deer with tracks everywhere including on the trail that the deer I shot at was on. I looked for a long time for any sign that I hit him. None found I met my two partners at the designated spot.

We walked the half mile or so to the parking lot, now really dark out. We could make out another truck parked in the lot. Someone was standing on the trail where it enters the lot, myself and one other with cased compounds walked past him. The third one of us with an unstrung recurve walked past him and had his bow yanked from his hands. None of us could even tell he was a warden yet at that point and a little scuffle occurred between the two until he identified himself as a warden. He talked to the three of us I bet for over an hour trying to make our stories mismatch. At one point he told me he never heard of anyone waiting a half hour before looking for a deer. Did everything he could to find a way to nail us for something we did not do.

Next afternoon I had to go back to look for that deer in daylite. The partner with the recurve came too. Plan was for me to look for sign I hit the deer and then hunt which we did. We knew the warden would be watching and had better be out on time. There was no indication the deer was hit and no sign of the arrow.

So, I get to the meeting spot and my partner is not coming out. After a while some locals that were cross country skiing came past me and we talked about the evening before and how my partner should be there unless he shot something. They told me what a dink the local warden we had encountered was. That he never really leaves his truck to do his job. They volunteered to help but I said that was OK. My buddy would come out if he needed help. I Told them to tell the warden I figured was at the parking lot that we would be out when we could.

Partner finally shows up and had been lost. We walked to the lot to be met by two wardens, the one from the night before and a young one neither of whom we knew. This time they were real nice to us, told him the story of getting lost and everything was OK. Figured the bad warden did not want to get so in our faces again with the other warden there to witness it. Maybe whatever the skiers told them helped too.

About 10 years later I was at a DU banquet and sat with the local warden that I had gotten to know by then as he was a member of our archery club. I was telling him this story and he started to smile. I asked what was up. Turned out he was that second warden, had tried to track me to my stand and couldn't because my tracks from looking for the deer that day and the night before covered the whole area. So, he sat is some bush next to the trail with hope of catching us with uncased bows. Just happened to be right where I was talking to the skiers and he heard our whole conversation about the night before.

Now if that isn't a perfect example of horrible warden and fantastic warden I don't know what is. I hate to think what might have happened if those skiers had not been there or if that second warden had not heard us talking.

Sorry, very long story.

Without shooting, there is nothing about hunting that cannot be done at any other time of the year.

Naz says: "Wardens I know don't go looking for guys sitting late, waiting for the deer to clear the area before they sneak back to the truck. They sit on known violators that they've received multiple tips on — and often have a prior history of disrespect for the law and those who enforce it."

This is nothing but conjecture, opinion and supposition that has nothing to do with law. Targeting known violators? Great. Catch them shooting after legal hours and you have a case. BT, for someone who I view to be otherwise a fairly sensible guy, you certainly dismiss the two instances cited pretty quickly. Why would you not be in favor of a rule that is much more clearly defined and easy to abide by?

I'm not going to change everyone's mind - however, many folks do not clearly understand the potential a law like this has to enforcement efforts and the wardens efforts to curtail illegal activities.

Captain -

The laws not broken - it never has been and has worked for Wisconsin and it's enforcement staff for years.

Wardens don't like it. There is a reason for this. It hampers their efforts and effectiveness to enforce OUR laws regarding illegal activities.

To me, that's important stuff.

It's should not only be important to me it should be to you as well. These are OUR laws that have been working for us.

Wardens make judgment calls everyday!!

"Was that guy snagging...or not?" "Was that guy riding his ATV on the Highway or not?" "Was that gal holding a fishing pole or not?" "Was that girl driving that snowmobile or not or was it that other girl?" "Did that duck hunter shoot 4 times at that duck?" "Is that the guy I saw yesterday dumping illegal bait?"

I could go on and on - wardens make judgment calls over and over, everyday of the year about some type of law or violation.

We are all good with that - "Hurrah for the Wardens!" "Good Job Wardens" "What a great bunch"

But somehow....when we ask them to make a judgment call on if someone is hunting or not after hours, they all turn into bubbling idiots who can make a legal call out of wet paper sack!

That is what pisses me off!

One guy claims we should take away discretionary authority while claiming wardens make assumptions when they arrest. Where do we get this stuff?

If we cannot trust our warden staff to make the right legal call, why do we employ them at all?

Why don't we save a ton of money and everyone ...just police themselves? How about ya fill out a questionnaire at the end of the hunt and you report what violations you may have made or your buddy and mail it in?

Listen to the professionals people - We spend thousands of dollars on training and educating these men and woman!

If you don't believe me, call your field warden and ask him or her what they think!

When they speak - LISTEN. They work for us!

I have no horse in this race folks - other than it's right for all of us!

Thanks!

"Bat"? Well I guess I've been called worse....

Allow me to tell you what happens before a citation ever goes to trial.

It's reviewed by the Prosecuting Attorney! In some Counties it's the Cooperate Council for the County or at times, the District Attorney. On State cases, such as WDNR citation - most often the DA's Office.

IF the Prosecuting Attorney feels the case or citation has merit, they will go ahead and prosecute the case.

When I tell you that the large, very large amount of citations never see a courtroom don't be surprised.

Deals are cut, citations dismissed and agreements hatched.

For a case to go to trial, which is expensive,the Prosecuting Attorney must really believe in this case and it's merits.

So the court case(s) you speak of you blame on the wardens indiscretion or failure to use proper discretion. I do find that interesting. Here's why....

Could it be the case was lost due to poor prosecution? Could it be the Prosecution was unable to produce a witness? Maybe it was the defendant who more flamboyant as a witness? Perhaps the court denied key evidence to be admitted? Who really knows?

There are many reasons why a court case is lost. To say the State lost the case because of the wardens "indiscretion" is a stretch in my mind.

Apparently the "Legal Beagle" for the County believed there was enough evidence to prosecute or the case would have been dumped long before it went to trial!

Captain - Thanks

Again, citations are not written on "assumptions" and "guesses" like some would have us believe.

They have to meet a certain criteria to move forward through the court system.

Start producing poor arrests on guesses and assumptions and you'll find yourself in not only your supervisors office, the Office of the DA and in some special cases...the Judge.

I'm sure Razor can chime in on this - you write crappy tickets, your life in the field of LE will be a short ride. And it should be.

I don't disagree with or not believe what you said. I still go back to my basic premise in that why would either citizens or law enforcement people not want a very clear cut law? It makes adhering to the law easier and it makes charging someone with breaking that law easier.

And, while they may be very minimal, I will argue that you are absolutely wrong in claiming that all citations "are not written on "assumptions" and "guesses" like some would have us believe." Quite the contrary, the guy I know who was charged is as honest and law-abiding as anyone.

Masterbait, I may bring up tin foil hats but I am not wearing one.

I'd love to see any type of proof that even gets you close to that number. That one almost deserves a tinfoil hat.

Eventually the law changed to allow hunters to be in the woods as long as we wanted as long as they were unloaded. As far as I am concerned the current rule is perfectly simple and in no way subjective. If hunting hours are over, unload your gun or take your arrow off your string. No guessing or assumptions needed. If you have a loaded gun or bow in your tree after legal hours, you are breaking the law.

All of us have been stuck in our stand with deer around us at shooting hours and wanted to wait to get down so we didn't spook them. I've never had a problem putting my arrow in my quiver without spooking them. After all, these are animals that we are assuming that we can move our bows enough to draw, aim and shoot at. If you can't get an arrow off your bow, you might as well stay home.

If you are one of the guys that leaves their bow/gun out overnight, you can. Just unload at shooting hours. The five seconds it takes to do that is nothing. Pretty minor trade off for not having to carry your weapon in and out if that is your choice.

There is absolutely no reason to be in your stand hours after closing and we don't need a change to the rules that would allow for people to do so. I don't get it. I am not one of the people that believes more than a small percentage of people violate, but we certainly don't need to make it easier for the ones that do violate to get away with it. Allowing someone to legally sit in their stand any time they want with a loaded gun or bow seems ridiculous.

Many of you need to step back and look outside of your own little box to see how all other things would be affected by a "simple" change in laws.

I bet the reason the law changed that you don't any longer need your bow cased or unstrung or gun unloaded at is because the legal guys in the dark dNR figured out that they couldn't really enforce it because it's within the persons rights to do so. To

The proper usage here would be "you're" and not "your". English 101. I only am correcting this because I saw you write this above "Im freakin brilliant" and this lack of grasping the English language contradicts that. Also, it should be I'm, not Im. A simple Thank You for the edification will suffice in this case.

FiveR's - you bring up an interesting point(s) - not sure however - Ill check further into your information - interesting -

I would think that as good sportsmen which the great majority are here, - there would be no reason Elk for anyone to come up with an excuse however of course, not necessary if one really was hunting yotes! And I do include you as one of the ethical hunters.

Buckmaster I'll PM you!

And for those who say it will be easier for the lawbreakers to break the law, I offer that the majority of people are not lawbreakers and should not have to face potential hardships, simply to make LE's job easier.

Again - for a warden to be standing in close proximity of a late shooter, to see or hear the arrow fly from the bow - Good luck.

If that law was passed, a hunter could rattle those horns, blow that grunt call and he/she (violator) decides not to take the shot or become suspicious or spots the warden before the shot - no case and the poacher walks away laughing all the way back to his truck!

Captain - Listen to me when I say - Wardens and LEO make charging decisions everyday! They interrupt law(s) everyday weighing the evidence/facts to make a determination in their mind as the investigating/arresting officer, IF a person is violating a law - ANY law...including hunting laws. It's no different!

"Was that guy riding his ATV on the Highway?" "Was that girl actually holding a fishing rod?" "Was that boat operating at a high rate of speed in slow no wake zone?" "Was that truck actually casting his headlights across that cornfield AT 2am TO SHIN DEER OR TURNING AROUND IN HIS DRIVEWAY?" "Did that hunter just shoot four times at that duck.?

Everyday - day in and day out a Warden or a police officer is making a decision based upon their training and experience determining IF a person violated a law!

Somehow, people seem to believe that when called upon to make a decision about hunting late - that same warden turns into a bumbling drooling idiot that cannot make a right decision to save his ass."

I find this unbelievable.

Law Enforcement, specifically Wardens, Deputy Sheriff's, Park Rangers, DCI Special Agents and Wisconsin State Troopers, Municipal Police Officers along with Constables, Marshals and FBI Agents, everyday in this State interrupt the laws of his State and use discretionary authority to enforce these laws.

That's what Law Enforcement does (among other things). Law Enforcement holds the public's trust to make those decisions and the public hold those officer's to an oath of office as a public servant/official to do the right thing.

Thanks!

He'll have the second doughnut down before the ink dries on the citation.

Years ago, in a fishing tournament I created and ran, we would do radio calls at certain times where every boat needed to report the number of fish they had on board.

Turned out the wardens were listening also, and they specifically targeted boats that reported they were only one fish shy of a limit. Every one of those boats had in excess of three lines out, while still having enough people aboard to not be over the limit on the number of lines in the water, per licensed angler. Every one of them were ticketed because the warden said they only should have had three lines left in the water, as only one angler did not have his limit.

I argued to the wardens superior that none of those ticketed were over their legal limit. The warden who wrote the tickets argued that to him, the intent was clear. These boats had too many lines in the water when only one fish was still needed for a limit. I countered, asking when it became part of the wardens job description to tell the public what lures and methods could be used to catch certain species of fish. This was a salmon tournament and my contention was that these guys who were ticketed could still have legally been fishing for other species.

Later in the day, we (tournament committee) were advised that all the tickets issued relating to this would be dropped. That was all fine and great, except by that time the tournament anglers receiving the tickets had been disqualified from the tournament as it was a tournament rule that any anglers cited for a violation would be immediately disqualified.

So, due to a vague rule and a wardens wide latitude to use his discretion, 11 teams were wrongly eliminated from the tournament. Remember, these were 11 teams that were within one fish of their limit.

I know this is anecdotal but had the wardens been told to simply issue tickets to those caught who over their limit, no tickets would have been issued and no competitors would have been disqualified.

In my mind, this is a perfect example to illustrate that the more clear-cut and defined a law is, the easier it is to follow and to enforce, without harming any innocent people along the way.

Does this happen everyday? I'd guess not. Did this warden lose his job for wrongly taking 11 teams out of a tournament? I'd guess not.

BT, I'm not sure if that warden was drooling when he wrote the tickets but there is a good chance he did later that day.

For some of this I guess we'll have to agree to disagree - thanks for listening!

BT

"If passed into law, it will do nothing but hamstring wardens and make their already difficult job, just that more difficult.

That my friends equates into more violations left unchecked, more deer poached illegally and violators left to win out over the many here that abide by the laws.

When a warden tells you that it will complicate his/her job or a law hinders their administration of his/her duties...believe them."

I don't understand how making a law more clearly defined would hamstring anyone. Rather than complicate, it should make it easier. If they heard or saw a shot after hours, a slam dunk. If not, then no infraction. That sounds much easier instead of more complicated.

Since wardens do have a good idea on who poachers are, certainly they will be watching them and they will now have a concrete case when they catch them shooting after hours.

The only thing I find bothersome about your perspective on this is that you are in LE yet you seem to have no concern for those inappropriately charged.

I spend a large amount of my time when assigned to the Courthouse detail, speaking with defendants on charges they are facing and how to appropriately handle them and provide them with options!

I'm not an attorney and that's the first thing I tell defendants. I tell them I cannot provide legal advice, but can offer up options to them and suggest to them folks that they may wish to visit with, that may perhaps help them in the court system.

IF I have knowledge of a citation that was inappropriately written, for whatever reason, I'm the first one to bring it to the attention of a supervisor. I have in the past and have dealt with it as a supervisor myself.

If I believed for a New York minute that this law was unjustly treating our hunters, I would be the first one to cry foul. Truth be told, it's not!

Has there been mistakes made, citations issued that shouldn't have - absolutely. Every branch of law enforcement has done it. Not on purpose mind you, but it happens.

But that problem is inherent to our system - we are dealing with human beings for our law enforcement - they are not computers and they are certainly not robots.

It doesn't matter if it's OWI/Speeding/Stop Sign Violation or hunting after hours - mistakes happen with all of it.

The important part here and the part to remember is two fold.

No.1: Happens VERY infrequently and No. 2: It is unfortunately inherent to our system of enforcement.

If it was not - we wouldn't have a court system at all - No need. Imagine Officers do not, never ever, make a mistake on an OWI or a Homicide - don't need a court - nothing to fight about!

We have somewhere around 650,000 gun hunters in the State. Between Gun Hunters, Bow Hunters, Crossbow Hunters and Bear Hunters how many hunters Captain? How many Hundred's of Thousand of Hunters do we have in the State?

How many people were unjustly or "mistakenly" issued a citation last year? For ANY violation?

Comparably - a very small, very small amount.

"Since coyotes can be hunted 24/7, it makes sense that if a guy is in the woods with a gun or a bow at any hour, he is well within the law provided he has a license."

NOT during bear or deer season!

see page 10 in the small game rules....

• Night Hunting: Unprotected species may be hunted without hunting hour restrictions except: 1. If hunting with a bow or crossbow, the hours listed on pages 31–32 apply for hunting all species during the bear and archery deer seasons. 2. If hunting with a gun, the hours listed on pages 31–32 apply for all species during the regular 9-day November gun deer season. This restriction does not apply during the 4 day antlerless deer season, youth deer hunt or muzzleloader season (see deer season dates on page 9). This does not apply in the southern Farmland Deer deer management zone.

wrong again, unless you predictably try and spin it and say you didn't mean "during bear or deer seasons" or you were speaking of "spring turkey season"

either way everyone here knows you have egg on your face once again dumbass.

Based on what I am reading here there is some false information being bandied about in regards to me and would like to set it straight. It starts back in 1976 when my father took me bowhunting for the very first time on the family farm . I was 12 years old the first time I hunted the family farm. We walked all over that farm as I learned about deer and hunting that day. We snuck up on a small field tucked back in the woods and saw a few does on the far end about 200 yards away. The deer didn’t seem interested in coming to us so my Father removed his hat and held it out by the bill and swung it back and forth like a pendulum. The deer caught sight of it and perhaps deer in 1976 were less wary than deer today because they started in our direction with their eyes fixed on the hat. They closed the distance quickly and even though they never got closer than 40 or 50 yards away, I was ready for them to get close enough for a shot with my recurve. Eventually they tired of the hat and turned and ran in leaping bounds with large white rumps and tails in the air. I was never so excited and had my first taste of buck fever. I was actually shaking. I got so excited, the event landed me in bed once I got home. My dad had introduced me to something that would forever change my life.

My father never was a bowhunter. He was a farmer with a family of 8 so there wasn’t time. Sure, he gun hunted every year but it was a freezer filling activity for him. My passion is bowhunting and always has been. My father is now 78 and after two knee replacements, heart disease and surgery to install 5 stents, deafness not corrected with hearing aids and only one working shoulder, he does not hunt as much or as hard any more. The blood thinners prevent him from tolerating the cold weather so I thought I could solve at least that much of his problem by building an elevated, insulated deer stand that he can hunt from on the same farm where he introduced me to bowhunting so long ago. I have a little propane heater that would keep him comfortable in the coldest of temps so he would not quit on hunting. I thought this would, in some ways help him continue hunting just as he helped me start hunting. I owe him a great deal and thought this would help for al he had done for me. The family farm where the elevated blind now stands, still belongs to my uncle but he no longer farms so he leases that 80 acre portion of it to another farmer who plants corn on it. The blind sits on one corner and the farmer plants his way around the stand. The last day that I bowhunted in 2012 was the Monday prior to gun season since I didn’t have to work on Veterans Day. The gun season was only 6 days away and the corn had not been picked and with lots of rain it looked like it wouldn’t get picked making the elevated stand sort of useless for the gun opener which was pretty disappointing. I was really hoping he would get a lot of use out of that stand during the gun deer season and that he could take a deer on the farm where he took me on my first hunt.

I really wanted to make the season as potentially successful for him as possible. Before I headed back home for the week I drove back to the stand to drop off a chair and other items and sat in the stand overlooking the tops of the corn stalks and was very disappointed because lately, every year he hunts seems like it will be the last year. Sometimes wanting something badly enough makes a guy do stupid things. I snapped off a few ears of that corn from that corner of the field and through them into the woods about forty yards to the East of the field into a location where he could see deer rather than just seeing the tops of corn stalks. I wrung the kernels off those cobs in a rather large area when I moved that corn from the field. It was the wrong thing to do but I rationalized it as doing what I could to help my dad get a deer for all he had done for me over the years. Besides, in 6 days those kernels would be gobbled up and long gone even if it was the squirrels and jays that made off with it. I learned a few days later when I called my father that the corn had been picked only 3 days before the gun opener. My dad was unaware of what I had done. He would not have wanted the help.

The night before gun season opener, we gathered as we always do and talk changed to the unseasonably warm temps for the opener. My father opted to hunt on my sister’s farm where they had been seeing far more deer than my cameras were showing near the elevated stand. When he opted for a new location, I decided the elevated stand ought not go un-hunted so that’s where I decided to sit. Opening morning came and I was staring out over 80 acres of newly picked corn field and looking over hundreds of pounds of spilled corn and half cobs strewn about the field, left by the farmer. That corn remained even of the few ears I threw into the woods were already gone.

At about 8:30 I shot a buck just to the East of the stand. After a few texts from others hunting the family farm wondering if I had shot, I noticed a truck enter the farm. The occupants, wearing blaze orange and not carrying firearms walked about 300 yards out to the neighbor’s stand who he had been investigating for the last few weeks on feeding out of season. I later learned they are having a family feud and a brother in law called him in because they would not let that family member hunt their farm any longer and while checking out the tip, that warden thought the elevated stand I built for my dad was also part of the neighbor’s land. The warden had visited their stand on Monday afternoon, the same Monday I moved the corn form the field.

When they came from the neighbor’s stand the younger warden was carrying a trophy rock. The elder man asked for my name and I gave it. He identified himself as a game warden with the DNR. He told me he was walking around the elevated stand on Monday and saw corn in the woods just East of the stand. He asked if I had hunted that area between Monday and opening day of the gun season. I had not since I was back at work all week. He said placing feed more than 24 hours prior to season was illegal. He asked if I had placed that corn there. I explained the situation as I have detailed here and how it came to be that I was hunting the stand instead of my father. The first thing he said was “I’ll bet your glad your dad wasn’t hunting here and that Im not here talking to him right now.” I agreed. We walked over to the area where I had moved the corn from the field edge, the spot where the buck now lay. He said “how come this buck isn’t tagged?” I explained that I had not yet climbed from the stand to go to the deer. He told me to get my tag on the buck ASAP. We talked more. He took my information and said that I would be getting a $343 fine for feeding (nobody hunted over the corn and it was gone prior to the gun opener). This was my first encounter with a warden in the field and I was pleasantly surprised at how he handled the situation. I did a stupid and boneheaded thing, thinking I was helping out my Dad. Like I stated earlier, wanting to help him made me justify his actions on his behalf. I was wrong. The warden was incredibly understanding. Our talk was pleasant and not at all what I expected. The warden was honestly a really nice guy. Had this been an illegal baiting violation, he would have taken the deer and my gun but this was not a baiting violation. I was issued a citation for using feed. I know some here will want to think this was a case of illegal baiting but nobody hunted over any bait and the citation was for placing feed before season. I think at the same time some will want to disregard the events of that day and manufacture their own story that is more interesting than what really took place since this turns out to be rather dull. The warden was downright nice and did a god job of explaining the whole matter. Perhaps it was because the little bit of corn was so close to the same field it came from or because it was gone or that I was looking out over 80 acres of more farmer spilled and dropped corn than you can imagine. He even went so far as to say, “hey, we all make mistakes, I understand what you were doing but am issuing the citation”.

I have since received a citation in the mail and paid the fine. I did not attend the court date (nor did I have too) I opted to stay with my wife to assist her recover from surgery. I was wrong in what I did and I own what I did and have paid the fine. Wanting to help out my dad is no justification for moving that corn those 40 yards.

This was not a bowhunting violation. It was not even a gun hunting violation since it took place a week prior to the gun season and nobody hunted over it. At the end of the deer season I called the WBH President and explained the situation and told him I am going to resign my position on the board and as legislative liaison. It’s the correct thing to do. Nobody asked me to resign. I Just figured it would be the proper thing to do. I can continue to help the org as an active volunteer though not on the board.

There have been some farfetched and wild accounts of what took place that I have read here and elsewhere by people wanting to make up bogus details and thus far they have all been wrong. What I did was wrong but I have not hunted over illegal bait. I did not receive a citation for illegal baiting. I have been trying to keep my dad hunting and in this case, went way too far to return the favors he has granted me over the years. I have long said that law breakers deserve every misery they have coming to them and I stand by that comment. I have paid my citation.

I think skook said it best

Deer hunting, I like to keep my gun loaded until I get to the truck. I'm usually hunting Kansas and I am all alone. I know it is an irrational fear but I like to have the gun for all the coyotes. They are thick in my area.

If i fire my shotgun or rifle before or after legal hours, the warden can easily hear me and site me for illegal hunting. If I want to walk through the woods with a loaded weapon, that should be okay.

Are you hunting if your firearm discharges??? You can fire a weapon without actually hunting, you would have to be firing your weapon at a game animal to be hunting.

I was just pointing out that I think "shooting hours" is a much better term. I know what shooting is. I don't know what "hunting" is.

Despite most counties voting to pass this "rule change" I am happy to report that at the Conservation Congress Convention this effort failed.

As most of you know I was quite adamant and passionate about this proposed change and I did speak to the delegation in attendance. It appeared to be 200 plus delegates give or take a few.

There was a motion and a second on the floor to pass this rule change and I and another delegate from Oconto County spoke to reject.

A subsequent vote was taken and the delegation UNAMIOUSLY (100%) voted to REJECT!!!

Common sense did prevail that afternoon as I am happy to report!

On an interesting note, our Wardens are not allowed to comment on rule changes. They have been told they have no opinion and will not speak to you or me about this.

I voted for Walker but OMG...these are the professionals in the field and we cannot ask them their opinion on issues they directly are involved with on a day to day basis?

Crazy world!

So a majority of hunters across the state voted for this change, but you knew what was best for hunters. Give me a break. What a freaking sham.

I'm sure RC will be on here in a minute under one of his pseudonyms telling you how the CC is totally irrelevant. I for once will agree with him.

What I do know is "common sense" and issues of personal safety. I suspect that is some of the reasons I was elected to my current position.

All I did was give the facts and the Congress voted to reject it.

No "freaking sham" at all.

Of course Kevin, if you weren't so busy "not being involved", perhaps you would have been there to witness it for yourself and not make such a fool hearted statement!

And while your at it, Kevin - man up and put your real name here so I know whom I speaking too! That would be a start.....

Thanks -

Pat

This community is indeed fortunate to have a shepherd like you.

I will always have an issue when a few deem the majority too ignorant and need protection from themselves.

Did you ever think the low participation rate of the general public in the CC is because of votes like this.

Why bother go and vote Blood will veto and override the majority anyway. Our voice doesnt really matter..

This community is indeed fortunate to have a shepherd like you.

I will always have an issue when a few deem the majority too ignorant and need protection from themselves.

Did you ever think the low participation rate of the general public in the CC is because of votes like this.

Why bother go and vote Blood will veto and override the majority anyway. Our voice doesnt really matter..

this was a case in point I believe.....

many years ago I submitted a proposal, to be able to cut up a deer in the field, to get it out for reasons, that many of us who hunt deep and solo needed....

well the CC and the NRB acted if they were gut shot,,, the cries and whines were loud, and some leo's said this would lead to mass poaching issues,,,,,

after 5 years of hard work, many of us, got it thru and we have what we have today,,,,,

so it can work both ways.....

stay well

I was on the fur committee and a feller had a resolution to be able to use powered snares to foot catch bears. He came and gave a demonstration on how they work and how certain provinces in Canada can use them.

Being a bear hunter and not just a trapper as most in the committee I seen that using these the success rate would sky rocket lowering tags and increasing wait times even more to draw a tag. I was the ONLY ONE to voice opposition on the fur committee.

Thankfully the big game committee seen what I did also and voted not to advance it to a state wide vote. Not all ideas are good, and not all good ideas are good for the resource or sport.

To be fair. The legislative route is just as if not more crooked. They just don't try to hide it.

Except of course when the disagree with the voice of the people, and the result of their actions. They then will throw out the results, claim the masses uninformed and misguided and do the bidding of the department. Its time once again for the congress delegates to shine, brag on Bowsite that they once again put a boot on the neck of sporting public and retain their rightful place at the altar for all to worship again next April.

Anybody remember the crossbow vote?

It will fall on deaf ears as usual......

Really?

Sounds like some sour grapes here Gentlemen....some name calling and some belittling? Thought you all were better than that. Frankly I'm surprised.

Have any of you thought this through?

There were delegates for 72 counties at this conference.

How did I single handedly convince at least 72 people that this rule change is foolishness? I knew a total of 7 people at this Convention - two other delegates from my County and the rest Wardens. I DIDNT KNOW ANYONE ELSE!!!!

They didn't vote because they love/know Pat LaBarbera!!

You people make it sound like I slipped everyone a 5 spot before hand to vote to reject this! It don't work that way Gents!

You make outlandish statements about the Congress. Just because a vote didn't go the way YOU wanted - the whole system is CORRUPT!! Are you guys for real?

The Treestand Rule Change - which would have allowed for a "trial" period was passed by the "peoples vote!!!" - Got to the Congress and was shot down! REJECTED.....

I was mad!! Pretty dammed mad!

But I got over it - I didn't make outlandish statements and degrade someone or the Congress. Didn't act like a child.

I did my homework on this rule change proposal and I spoke for my allotted 3 minutes on this subject. I stated facts and I stated statistics. My speech was meet with a round of applause.

Statistically - I don't even know why we are wasting our time on this.

If you people knew the numbers involved here - you'd have a heart attack!

This baby's not dead yet. There will be a public hearing and everyone of us will get a chance to speak at the NRB...

How many of you guys will I see there?

Here's another thought...maybe we can car pool!

We can use Zinger's van...

You boys need to lighten up!

Here's a though...why don't you get involved and change this terrible system we have? There ya go!!!

You can count on seeing me at the NRB meeting. Believe it or not, far more goes into making a law than the ease of it for LE to enforce it. Sorry I missed your presentation. I don't think it would have been hard to pick apart.

I look forward to seeing you and the others here in Madison. It will be interesting to see just how many here will show and actually testify!

Mike - I'm truly saddened that my response didn't meet with your approval - I didn't name call nor did I attempt to belittle anyone.

"Sorry I missed your presentation" - Well Mike if you would become "involved" instead of chit-chatting from the sidelines here.... you would have seen it!

Please attend the spring hearings - run for election and become a delegate for your County - change the system Mike!!!

Good Hunting!!

As for the law I thought the way it was voted on protected hunters from over zealous wardens who wanted to try to write a ticket for hunting after hours when one was nearly sitting in the woods.

Thanks for a voice of reason and respect.

Much like the "Treestand" vote - It too was overwhelming supported by the public - it got to the Congress and was REJECTED. Oh no - why are we voting and the big bad Congress veto's the vote?

Come on people....

That's what is so unique about the Congress - YOU DISCUSS!

Most people when they attend the Spring Hearing see the question for the first time. There is no time to research and find underlying problems...

That's what make the Congress a good tool - I WANTED THE TREESTAND TRIAL period and guess what - I LOST OUT!

This proposed rule change has NOTHING to do with OVERZEALOUS wardens.

If you don't believe me....take this challenge.

How many citations were issued in previous year(s) for hunting after hours?

Maybe someone should research the number of citizen complaints against Warden staff concerning Hunting hour violations?

Why is this even an issue - hard to believe.

Looking forward to public hearing -Hope to see you there.....

Oh and Bow-Tech - In my County the vote was tied concerning this question. Actually it was rejected - but my wife and I voted "yes" so it was a tie - we changed to "NO" after research.

I represent my County...not the State of Wisconsin. I steered this the way I believe my fellow County residents who elected me would have liked to see me vote!

Pat

‘Hunt’ or ‘hunting’ includes shooting, shooting at, pursuing, taking, capturing or killing, or attempting to capture or kill any wild animal.

Sounds like more "sour grapes" Mike! Instead of getting involved and work to change something you don't think is working you vent your displeasure in a forum? Your better than that Mike.

What may I ask have you done to change thngs - ???

I decided to get involved Mike. Doesn't make me any better than anyone else - just thought I'd give something, free of charge and valuable to me...MY time.

We can talk more at the public hearing on this matter as I look forward to meeting you and discussing this further!

Regards -

Pat

Very interesting - but lets look at a bigger picture - shall we?

Again - I refer to the Tree Stand question that was passed by the "voters" to allow a "trial" period for placement of tree stands on State lands!

It FAILED - It was REJECTED and the CC voted against the voters on this issue as well. Why aren't you screaming at this Bow Tech? Perhaps you don't want tree stands on State lands...so the system worked for you there?

If you would have spent the time to attend the Conference you would have seen that on this issue and the Tree Stand issue there was much discussion!

Yes, discussion!

The CC voted against the Tree Stand "trial" because of the way it was worded and that question followed a proposal to have tree stands across the State legal. CC voters thought that their constituents were voting for the lesser of two evils and voted to REJECT!

Oh well - I think the system worked - I wasn't happy - but that will be my next project....

The system - not perfect...but then again Gentlemen - please tell me which system is 100% perfect?

Once again, can you explain what the intent of the current rule actually means? Can a warden assume you were actively hunting because you were in your stand before or after hours, or arrived at your vehicle quite late? The unfortunate side of this, is a warden can assume, and without visual evidence, can certainly be wrong, and the burden of proof lies on you to prove to a judge of the same circuit that the warden who works for the same employer (the state), got it wrong.

The motion may be a moot point either way, because like I stated, the wardens have never stopped me for questioning at my truck, but I never really knew what actively hunting meant, except you have an arrow nocked, and are still hunting deer, and how do they even know you weren't hunting coyotes after that? I'm certainly not trying to look at loopholes, but wouldn't they really need to be on top of you anyway to SEE that you were actively hunting?

The current rule allows a hunter to be in the woods as ling before or after hours as they want whether it's because they have deer under them, they are a long ways in, or are just stargazing.

First, let me "Thank You" for a reasonable and well written question concerning this issue. You bring up some points that many here are interested in as well.

From what I am reading and what I have been hearing - the main question regarding Hunting/Shooting hours lies solely with the ability of a Conservation Warden and how he/she interrupts the law and enforces it.

We as taxpayers spend thousands of dollars training and educating our LE officers and that includes wardens.

We entrust these same people to carry firearms where need be and if need be....use that firearm to defend themselves or the life of another person (citizen).

We ask our Wardens to make spilt second decisions ....those same decisions that may take a couple of attorneys and a court of law years to figure out!

Yet some people believe that a warden cannot figure out whether a person is hunting late or not? Really?

Any given day Wardens make multiple decision that effect the life's of any number of citizens. They make "citation issuing" decision every day practically. Some folks get tickets...others don't!

They have the ability like any other LE Officer to exercise "discretion".

What non-law enforcement (citizens) fail to see is that any warden worth their salt knows that they need to make a good case to get a conviction. Courts don't convict on "speculation" or "gut feelings"...District Attorneys do not charge on shabby police work.

You may get a citation...but remember...the prosecuting attorney (DA) has to review to proceed with charges. Once that's done then a Judge or Jury needs to convict - many fail-safes in place!

Our Wardens are top-notch. But remember this...as Law Enforcement Officers we are human as well. As often as we get things right - we still have the human element to deal with.

It's still the best system in the land. If you think you can do better - grab an application!

To answer your question Pete - Wardens - many of them are hunters themselves and they understand all about staying quiet in the stand and let the deer move on before you get down.

They understand you get to your vehicle after dark - hell I do all the time. I'm old and fat!!

It blows me away...wardens make so many decisions everyday and people don't think they can get the hunting/shooting thing right?

Unbelievable....

Today's Warden rely heavily on "common-sense" from what I see when working with them. A very sharp group of guys and gals...

I must admit I do load my shotgun for turkeys at the truck before heading to my blind that might be right near the roost. Am I illegal? When I put decoys out in the dark, am I illegal? If I return a cluck to a gobbler in the dark, am I illegal? I could say yes and I could say no. Yes, I'm loaded, decoying, and calling, but I use complete restraint before pulling the trigger on a legal hours bird. I'm certainly teetering on discretionary values, at the same time I'm not alone. Never been charged for this, but I could I guess?

As far as shooting hours with a bow, I'm shocked at times how dark it actually is at times, with still "legal time" left on the clock, so I have no issue with pulling my arrow off the string and putting it in my quiver. It's literally the first thing I do when packing up. Put the bow on the string and lower it to the base of my tree. Strip my clothes, pack my gear, and get down. Occasionally I will sit in my stand, knowing a decent deer or other deer clueless to my location are very close by.

Either way, the rule is discretionary, and I believe any warden, or any hunter can find a middle ground when the fringes of the law might be broken. I can accept his decision if he said my decoy in the field before hours is considered actively hunting, but I don't think they're going to waste their time with that one? Maybe I'll be proven wrong? Maybe it helps to hunt private land? Maybe I've been lucky, and maybe I'll have to change the way I hunt because of it?

Skook, as a CC holder, a person can have with them at all times a loaded gun. Under WI constitution a person can legally open carry a loaded firearm. Why would anyone want to leave a grey area such as that in the game laws if that law could be made more concise, clear and well defined?

They can arrest and un-arrest. The can detain you for 72 hours on a mental health commitment with a signature and place you in jail and release you from jail - hours later. They can write you a speeding ticket...or not! They can stop/detain and immobilize your freedom of movement.

They can issue you a citation, requite bond (cash) or take you to jail.

And when they do this they are exercising what's called "discretionary authority" it is the corner stone of what law enforcement officers do every day!

It's often the difference between receiving a ticket, trip to jail or a verbal warning!

They can take a report, forward it to the DA or TAKE you to jail -

They make these decisions as LEO because our laws are not "clear cut" an different applications apply in different situations!

Thank the good Lord and Greyhound that the police/deputies and wardens have "discretional authority."

Trust me after 35 years as a law enforcement officer as a citizen you DO NOT want your police or wardens to NOT have that ability.

So uninformed - non law enforcement types like "Bow Tech" would like "discretionary authority" to be taken away!

Really?

First off - when you report me for a "violation" to the WCC remember that the "B" in LaBarbera is capital!

Secondly - Please forward the "mystery" WCC delegate my way for a chit-chat....love to hear from him/her.

Finally - "abuses it power" to "silence" the public?

Please forgive me Bow tech, but are you and I on the same planet? Good Lord....

There are a few things with the WCC I would like to see changed, but so far I am very impressed with the people involved and the system.

I glad to see your actually spending some time to educate yourself with regards to the WCC and the NRB. There's a lot to learn and much to view. I myself continue to learn and enjoy the experience.

I voted the way I did because that is what I believed my County expected of me and yes, I also believe in that as well.

I have spoke with many constituents over time and have had no negative feedback. After all, those are the people I represent - my County!

I have elected to save my dissertation on this entire matter for the NRB public hearings. I would suspect you and my friend Capt. Mike and many others from this site will be in attendance.

Lastly, I am no smarter or dumber than the average Joe.

What I do process that many others don't is a life long experience in law enforcement,public safety and operations.

If that makes me "smarter" (in your world) than so be it - but I call that experience in a given field of expertise based solely on years of service. I have fought the good fight. I am no better nor any less of a man than anyone else.

If you care to "muddy" the waters by making it sound like I think I'm smarter...your barking up the wrong tree Mister! Your welcome however to bark away.

Those who know me....know better.

I'm looking forward to meeting you all and to hear your testify on this important matter! I'll be in Madison or wherever this journey takes me!

Keep your chin up and keep studying Bow Tech!

Enjoy....

Yet when a change comes about that would make a certain law a little more "clear cut" and amount to leo not needing to use as much "discretionary authority" you adamantly are against it. One can only wonder why.

The law as it is written provides Wardens with the proper enforcement "elements of intent".

What this new proposal does, in my professional opinion (among many other things) is put wardens and law enforcement staff in harms way needlessly.

Law Enforcement now needs to wait until a violator discharges a high powered rifle, arrow or bolt. The law enforcement official needs to be in close proximity to arrest the violator and I believe that this is asking way to much of any one officer or official.

Do you want to be sneaking around a darkened wooded area trying to collect evidence on a violation when you know an armed violator is perched above ready to shoot? Would you do that HunterR - Doubt that very highly.

Are we all nuts? This goes way beyond of what anyone of us should be asking of any law enforcement official. Does anyone think how potentially dangerous this would be...or you just don't care? Not my job! Right?

Like I said - I will leave the rest of my talking to the public hearings -

the Fat Lady has not sung yet and you may be surprised!

Please consider attending the public portion of this event.

Pat

Embrace it - it's the thing that may just get you out of your next speeding ticket!! :>)

Be Thankful LE has that tool in the toolbox.....

You asked a lot of questions - so I guess I can look back - pick one of the many and hit ya up!

As far as the WCC training me - that is not only false - it preposterous. They do have a "New Delegates" meeting at the Conference for the "newbies" but I did not attend that session.

I am very fortunate however to have a Chairman that has been with he WCC for many, many years and found his full support to my cause. Along with his guidance!

Secondly, you state that attendance is dropping and how many don't get involved.

Well Dear Sir, I am ashamed to tell you that I myself knew nothing of the WCC till about 4 or so years back. I knew less about the NRB. That's embarrassing.

Many Sportsman across this State have absolutely NO idea who the WCC is and what they do!

I have a meeting this Saturday for WCC, have to miss a local event in Town because of it. I tell people I'll be at the WCC meeting and they look at me like I have a green horn growing out of my head. They don't have a clue....and they ARE sportsmen!!!

You yourself have admitted to "learning" about the WCC and the NRB by reading and learning.

Average Joe Sportsman has no or little idea of the NRB, who's on the board and how anyone one person gets on the board!

I have many, many friends that are Sportsmen and Sportswomen....they HAVE NEVER been to a Spring hearing - They don't have a clue to what a Spring Hearing is!!!

So you can banter about your baseless claims that the WCC sucks because things didn't fall your way all you want!

The truth of the matter is that way too many people don't even know what the WCC is and even fewer know what the NRB is and what they do!!!

That answer your questions?

The only time we had a meeting and the room was filled is when it involved wages! Then everyone was there..

Most people wait and let someone else do it. They have all the excuses - too busy, they don't listen to me, they are corrupt....

The list goes on and on!

Those that work at the Clubs, the WB and other organizations know it exactly what I mean. Too few workers....many by-standers!!

Get involved, don't like it, work to fix it!

BT, if I get a speeding ticket, which I did just recently, I fully accept it. I was aware I was speeding. IF a LEO uses his discretion in issuing a ticket, it is done before the ticket is ever written.

If we have shooting hours as a guideline, there is no law broken until a shot is fired after the legal stated time. Why in the world would anyone want to leave it to the discretion of another to determine if they were or were not breaking a law? The shot fired is an easily defined point in time when there is no discretion needed to determine if a law has been broken or not. This not only gives the hunter clear guidance, it will help clear the courts of over-zealous tickets that end up being dismissed and use up taxpayer dollars. It is a win-win situation for all.

You are saying you are the voice for yours, or did I misread you?

So if 61 counties voted to approve and 11 not, should this not move forward? The WCC should have no choice but to recommend this pass to the next level.

Since the WCC did not pass this resolution, how can you not say the system is broken?

Your logic about sneaking around the woods in the dark when hunters have loaded weapons, makes no sense.

you say, "What this new proposal does, in my professional opinion (among many other things) is put wardens and law enforcement staff in harms way needlessly.

Law Enforcement now needs to wait until a violator discharges a high powered rifle, arrow or bolt. The law enforcement official needs to be in close proximity to arrest the violator and I believe that this is asking way to much of any one officer or official.

Do you want to be sneaking around a darkened wooded area trying to collect evidence on a violation when you know an armed violator is perched above ready to shoot? Would you do that HunterR - Doubt that very highly.

Are we all nuts? This goes way beyond of what anyone of us should be asking of any law enforcement official. Does anyone think how potentially dangerous this would be...or you just don't care? Not my job! Right?"

So with the rules the way they are now, wouldn't that same warden have to be sneaking around the woods in the dark anyways to catch someone? I guess I don't see how conditions would have changed for the warden.

BT, when the majority votes one way and the WCC goes against that vote, that provides ample grounds for calling the process baseless. Talk about sneaking around in the woods, seems there is some "sneaking around" going on by CC representatives. And, not necessarily in the woods.

The law as it is written provides Wardens with the proper enforcement "elements of intent".

What this new proposal does, in my professional opinion (among many other things) is put wardens and law enforcement staff in harms way needlessly.

Law Enforcement now needs to wait until a violator discharges a high powered rifle, arrow or bolt. The law enforcement official needs to be in close proximity to arrest the violator and I believe that this is asking way to much of any one officer or official.

Do you want to be sneaking around a darkened wooded area trying to collect evidence on a violation when you know an armed violator is perched above ready to shoot? Would you do that HunterR - Doubt that very highly.

Are we all nuts? This goes way beyond of what anyone of us should be asking of any law enforcement official. Does anyone think how potentially dangerous this would be...or you just don't care? Not my job! Right?"

Of course I wouldn't do that, but then again I'm not a law enforcement officer and even if I was I still wouldn't do that. There's a logical way to do most any task and on the other hand there's a ridiculous way and the scenario you've created would fall under the latter. Bloodtrail you really seem to be reaching and making up all sorts of silly reasons as to why you're so against the thought of a well defined law that would prevent leos from needing to use as much personal discretion. I still wonder why.

Well Congratulations on latest moving violation! I feel kind bad for ya, but I have to say ya sound happy here?

While statics show us that most motorists encountering law enforcement (police) get off with a verbal warning...you managed to secure points off your license and a monitory fine and possibly a rise in your insurance rates to boot!

And you appear happy about that as well! I say...Good for you....

I do have to ask you Mike....Would it not have been nicer if the officer would have exercised his/her "discretionary authority" and let you go with a warning? Just tell ya "slow down" and left you on your way?

I mean after all, you could have saved some money, points on your DL and those Insurance rates OUCH!

That may have been a new tree stand or two - Maybe a new bow?

Just like that police officer knew you were speeding Mike, that Game Warden knows when your Hunting late as well.

Things are fine with the speeding and after hours hunting law - no need to change it!

Good Luck and be safe now!

PS: Slow down dang it!

Your name listed on Bowsite is "s sure" I don't think that is a name and because of that I will choose not to respond.

Like my ole' friend RC has said - if you don't have the balls to say who you are on here your opinion doesn't count!

Get a name and we'll talk!

Pat

Same program -

No balls to say who you are - next! I don't have time to listen to anonymous people

Pat

You my friend have a set of gonads! Let's talk shall we!

This is the question as it was presented to the people:

"Establish that legal hours for taking game be referred to as "shooting hours" rather than "hunting hours"

What in the hell does this say? What are the potential fall outs - good points - points to improve on or the positives/negatives to this question?" Are there? Maybe...maybe not!!!

What bunch of

Do you think for one second, that we as a people, should simply just install or move on this as potential law with absolutely NO discussion?

Really?

There are over 450,000 people that hunt Wisconsin. Do you think less than 4,000 people should allow a law to be passed (moved forward) without ANY discussion?

The WCC has delegates from all 72 counties.

Why do the Counties have delegates? I mean what's the reason? What's the point? Some have 5 delegates...why do they have delegates. And people in the County ELECT these people.

And when a County ELECTS these delegates...what do you believe these ELECTED delegates should do? They ARE ELECTED BY the people right!!!! And they should do what's best for the people - right?

Now, when your done with that...

Please tell me and the rest of the gang here ----

Because I am sure you spoke to YOUR (each) County delegate(s) on this matter..... What did they say?

Why did THEY vote to reject this potential change in our law?

Please let us know! Are you now moving to have them removed from office? They didn't vote the way you thought they should...what action are you taking on this?

And as a side note - I'm not smarter than anyone else - other than maybe you - but really no one else - so do me and everyone a favor..... drop the bullshit!

I encourage everyone to get involved. WCC, Hunters Safety, LTH - Club Events and Youth Programs!

Ya, you can drop the b.s.

Technically I do not believe I'm OBLIGATED to carry the vote for my County.

I feel a duty to do that and if you all want to twist my words as say I said I am "Obligated" then so be it!

But I, like everyone else that was elected was not elected because we are idiots, ego guys or loud mouths. We were elected because we are people that are "doers...like to volunteer and fight the good fight"!

Bow_Tech - Take all that energy you use in "sour grapes" rants and put it in to volunteering!

The world will be a better place for it! And SO will YOU!

Oh yea, that was my only ticket in the last 20 some years so while I appreciate the advice, I'm doing OK. My insurance is intact and in no danger of going up. But, if it did, it would be my fault and no one else's. And lastly, that officer did have the ability to use his discretion. Seeing that I was issued a ticket only shows that he chose to not use that discretion. I wonder if a warden might do the same??

Put your energy into putting your real name here and not hiding out! What are you afraid of?

Perhaps some conservation violations?

Come out from the darkness! And then you and I can talk - until then - sorry!

Pat

But my point is "discretion" and I cannot understand for the life of me why people like yourself cannot understand this.

We have a "safety" in place - law enforcement discretion!

Our wardens are NOT idiots. They can figure out when someone is hunting and someone is not hunting!

We give them each a gun. We tell them that if someone threatens your life or that of another you can use this this to stop that threat. You can kill someone!

And you people think that they cannot figure out if someone is hunting or not?

Our Wardens are tasked with an unbelievable assignment!!

Ask yourself this.

When was the last time you heard of ANYONE getting a citation for hunting hours violation?

Then ask yourself this one -

When was the last time you heard anyone complain about getting a ticket for it that wasn't deserving?

Answer me those two questions?

You apparently had time to listen and talk before so I wonder what changed? The only thing I see in your posts that changed was you seem to have gotten a little hot under the collar. Funny how when that happens you demand to know a bunch of details about who you're talking with. I wonder why?

"BT, I am here to tell you that I have a personal friend who was ticketed for this very thing. He was walking back to his truck with slugs still in his shotgun, after dark. He had never fired a shot that day yet the warden wrote him a ticket for hunting after hours.

He did go to court and won the case, but that was at his loss. His loss of a work day and his loss of his time, defending himself against a bogus charge."

Does this happen often? I'd guess not. Point is, with clearly stated rules, it would happen a whole lot less.

While this has no direct bearing on the topic, I share it only to show that even LEO's are human and can behave in less than perfect ways. Well defined laws can help curb that type of behavior.

So what's the problem?

The system worked. Did it not?

Did your friend loss a day of work, perhaps. But that is our system and it worked for him. He was vindicated by the (OUR) court system and I say "Hallelujah" - OUR system worked that day!

You yourself could have fought your speeding ticket.

You choose to pay - you believed your guilty.... The system worked!

IF the law would change can you or anyone else absolutely 100% guarantee there wont be a "bad" citation written?

No one can do that! I certainly cannot!

I have been a LE Officer for 35 years. Do you think I ever wrote a "bad" ticket. Do you?

Let's change the drunk driving laws because I wrote what some could say was a bad DWI citation!

Years ago, I was chasing a vehicle and when it finally stopped, the driver and passenger bailed on foot ....I caught the driver. So I thought.

He went to trial...

His attorney and "passenger" had me so mixed up, I began doubting what I had see with my very own eyes.

And, yes, after losing in court (jury) I thought...maybe I did get it wrong!

Whatever - you don't change an entire law because of it however!

Yes, they guy had to loss several days of work...but the system WORKED for him that day. I was pissed, but the system worked!!

Very few people are very cited and most I suspect are counseled by wardens.

To change this law is to put wardens in harms way (if they already are not) and making what some believe a dangerous situation - even more dangerous.

If you have "wardens harassing" you - you don't try and change a law -

You talk to supervision and file a complaint if necessary!

Years ago I worked on a Boston Whaler out of the Racine Harbor checking fisherman as well as commercial fisherman. I was a Deputy Warden back then and enjoyed my time on Lake Michigan - perhaps we met?

I may have been the on checking you 16 times (LOL)

Seriously, you have a problem with any law enforcement you see a supervisor if you cannot square it with the officer or warden.

That is the proper way to handle things!

No, sorry to burst your bubble but I do not fish out of Racine. Were there people there that you harassed multiple times?

Capt Mike -

That's how the system works. You get arrested - you contest it - cost you a day or two of work.

It's worse if your a jury person.

You lose multiple days and a get a grand 12 dollars a day for your trouble.

If you can invent a better system Mike, go for it- there's tons of people who tried and would be interested in any new ideas.

In the meantime - for like the last 100 years or so - we lose a day of pay!

Absolutely - this proposal puts law enforcement at a greater risk.

Ive been doing the job along time Mike - I know all about risks and adding more of it to a situation!

We don't need to put law enforcement at a greater risk so someone wont lose a day of work!!

I thought to myself - how fantastic!!

Guess what - the WCC REJECTED IT. Shit canned it right before my eyes!

You know what changed everything - DISCUSSION!!!

That's right - delegates that were elected by each of the 72 counties discussed it and then overturned the vote (How Dare they) - Pissed me right off...

But guess what?

I understand why they did it - I don't agree but I understand.

But NO ONE HERE talks about Question #3 and the dirty bastards on the WCC that over turned the citizen vote!!!

I WONDER WHY?

There's only two and that's HunterR and Sharspur!

They are the only two, not man enough to put their real names down - I don't have time to deal with people that are anonymous and lurk in the darkness of anonymity.

Secondly Bow-Tech - every time you use the reference of "We" "Us" and "People"....you're actually speaking or referencing yourself. I know it, the folks know it and it's now time for you to get a life and move on.

I get it, people in general get it - Yes, we all get it...you didn't like what happened!!! Enough all ready... No amount of bickering and foot stomping is going to change that!

Now, I need to go. It's just after 6 AM and I'm getting dressed for a meeting for a WCC meeting in Wausau.

Don't want to be late, they'll dock my pay...WAIT...that's right...I do that for free!!

Have a great day!

Ding ding ding I do believe we have a winner. ;-)

Wow - that's a lot of research on a question.

Then delegates YOU elect then discuss the question and then VOTE AFTER DISCUSSION and some research is shared...Sounds pretty simple to me.

YOU people elected YOUR delegates in your Counties to go and VOTE.

You don't like it...call them up. THEY are your delegates. Bitching/Pissing and Moaning at me will get you no where...

Other than a warm and fuzzy perhaps!

If you have a set of balls, call them up and ask them why they voted that way. They work for you!

They are YOUR delegates! Hello?

Enough is enough!

Of course it's allot easier turning on your computer and bashing ole' Patty!

skookumjt GOT IT RIGHT!!!

Now, after a day of volunteering..I'm tired and off to bed!

It takes many types to make a world...lucky us!

You need to get back on the med's or talk with someone - like my good friend RC would say "Living in your head rent free 24/7" -

Seriously - you need to move on my friend and find a quiet place.

Life will get better.....

Run for CC - make the world a better place. Don't know what else to tell ya other than I'm done.

As a newbie I was impressed with the people I met, welcoming to say the least.

I had the opportunity to be introduced to two young people from Racine County who will be working with the Youth CC - great young people...a young lady and young man!

I am very impressed with the caliber of people I am meeting and they way I am being treated. Very nice.

I was surprised to see a good number of citizen also attending as they were allowed to work with us on our resolutions we were reviewing and voting on.

It was a good day - time well spent!

Bring the wife next time. Plenty of lady's attending which was nice to see.

I am on the sub committee for WI Youth. Pasq should like that...LOL!!!

There is nothing arbitrary about the current regulations other than for the people that are trying to play games and claim they are sitting in a treestand hunting for coons or coyotes. The regulations specifically state the start and close of hunting hours for every day. If you have loaded gun or bow before or after that, you are in violation. If you choose to load your gun early to avoid spooking game when you load or not unload at the end of the day because there are deer under you, that is your choice. A warden has the discretion to not cite you based on the circumstances, but you are still in violation. No different than a choice to drive on the highway at 62 mph. A cop might let you go, but you are still speeding.

BT, congrats on donating your time. I, and others, know the satisfaction you feel.

BT, considering the NRB has not put the topic on their agenga I don't know how you can say they have slapped the Congress down. Or how the Congress made any errors.

No, nothing has moved yet with the NRB on this and may never. We will watch closey.

They are planning to meet here in Black River Falls in September. Seeing that I live just down the street, I plan on stopping by and sitting in on the meetings. I also plan on introducing myself at that time if time allows for it.

So, Bow_Tech if your available, please stop by! You can visit with the NRB and me. I'll sweetin the pot and let you actually hold one of my hunting hawks!!

Cant pass that up now.....

Also what business is it of a warden to check if my gun is loaded or not if I'm not doing anything wrong? In fact they can only ask to see if it's loaded, they can't demand it unless there is other circumstances such as they saw you shooting after hours.

All I ask is that you show me where it says I can't have a loaded gun in the woods anytime I want. This really isn't a hunting issue, it's a right issue. I can walk around anytime I want with a loaded gun in Wisconsin regardless of hunting season or if I have a valid license.

I believe in years past the wardens had a believe of more power than they actually had. I bet if you would have fought it you would have won. I know today you certainly would unless they can proove you were hunting. Heck now how would he even know you had a loaded gun unless you volunteered to show him it was loaded? Sitting in a stand with a gun does not mean you're hunting.

Anyway - BINGO!! You are absolutely correct with that post!

Funny - now that you think of it!

Pat

I might be wrong, and I am not perfect, but for me I simply look at the time of day, my hunting is to end, I look at my watch, and when the time is up, I leave,,,,,,,

but since I hunt a lot of spots, a way from the vehicle, it will be dark, when I get out......

I have been checked twice, at my truck, by wardens, both times I had my recurve,,,,, never had a problem, they just asked where I was at, and knew the walk out was a good 20 minutes away,,,,,,,,

both times, they stayed around and talked hunting for awhile.........

I know you'd come around sooner or later - Atta boy! Just when I though common sense took a vacation - and some say common sense isn't so common anymore?

"So do I. Enforcement of shooting hours. Not the discretionary and arbitrary hunting hours in which a person will decide if you are hunting or not."

A trained and State certified law enforcement officer will decide not a "person". ALL wardens are State Certified Law Enforcement Officers - EVERYONE of them!

Just like the ones (LEO) that decide if your speeding, drunk driving or running a stop sign or not. The same ones that decide whether your shoplifting or operating an ATV or boat under the influence. Operating an ATV on a roadway or fishing in a closed area. Fishing w/o a license or not enough PFD's onboard a watercraft...

They make their decisions based upon training, experience and observations. make them everyday.

No different!

And foolish people like Bow_Tech seem to think they (law enforcement) don't have a fiddler's pint of law enforcement sense to make a determination to if a person is hunting late or not?

Really?

Is it that hard? (WE) give them (Wardens) all guns and they (Wardens)make split second decisions on protecting themselves and others with the firearms we arm them with.....

BUT THEY CANNOT decided if someone is hunting or not?

Hmmmmm....very interesting! OMG - Idiots!

Yes we give LE the discretion to make judgment calls but if possible I much prefer the law to be cut and dried. If I'm sitting in a stand 15 minutes before shooting time how do they determine if I'm "hunting" or not.

If you change it to shooting hours, everyone will poach, people will be lying dead everywhere and law enforcement will be in danger.

Guess what, we took away gun/bow cases and have conceal carry but still the law abiding citizens have not decided to poach or harm others. And I'm quite sure the people who will hunt or shoot after hours don't give a hoot if it is changed to shooting hours.

But I do. I should not be interrogated because I'm walking out of the woods with my legally uncased gun after hunting hours because of the wardens own belief of what "pursuing" is.

THIS IS WHAT YOUR MISSING!

As law enforcement officers WE make theses types of decisions EVERY day! EVERY day!

This in no secret "Ju-Ju" to hunting/shooting hours.

As LAW OFFICERS we use "discretionary interpretations" EVERYDAY!

I have been doing my job this way for THIRTY FIVE (35)years and NOW you tell me IM doing it WRONG?

Really?

IF I issue you a ticket...I'm not JUDGE and JURY. YOU GET YOUR DAY IN COURT....like everyone else.

I can offer you leniency AND not issue a ticket - I have discretionary authority - I get to pick who I issue a citation to and who I do not issue a citation to. I choose who I arrest and who I don't arrest.

The LAW provides me with that authority - As a law enforcement officer I cite or arrest who I want, when I want!

That being said, I better make sure I have a good case before I do or their will be consequences to ill thought out or improper actions on my behalf.

Here's a thought....I don't tell you how to do your job - and in exchange...unless you are a police officer/Warden/deputy sheriff - you don't tell me how to do mine.

Because I certainly don't have a clue how to do your job and trust me -

Bow Tech and Capt Mike have proven beyond any reasonable doubt they don't have the slightest clue how to do mine!

There is no "discretionary interpretations" of a posted speed limit of 55mph. If I'm traveling 56mph, I'm breaking the law. It is up to the officer discretion to give me a citation. There is no interpretation.

But "pursuing" game can take on a more broad definition.

And Bloodtrail, nobody is telling you how to do your job or the wardens. We are just changing the rules/law they are to enforce. Much like the increase speed limit on the interstate and changing hunting to shooting hours.

What others have been trying to explain to you is the public wanted this change, the WCC ignored it and now it is up to the NRB decide. Most likely, the NRB will choose to listen to the public and override the delegates votes making your vote and the entire "process" worthless. The NRB would have been better off letting the public take a survey rather than waste money in the "process".

Even if the NRB decides not to take this matter up, we now have public vote largely in favor of the change which will make both REP and DEMs satisfied to make the change via legislation. Which is the way I wanted to do in the first place.

Another note, I have never once attempted to tell you how to do your job. I defy you to show me where I have done so. Don't let your emotions cloud your thinking.

What I am advocating for will make a wardens' job easier. Less cases thrown out by a judge, less cost to the legal hunter. A win-win for all. However, I do have many friends in many facets of LE, including, sheriffs, police men, DOJ and FBI. In speaking with them regards this, the one thing they almost entirely agree on is that they all know of over zealous work mates. While I'd like to believe there are no people like this, the reality is that there are. Clearly and easily defined laws are easier for the public to follow, easier for LE to enforce and leave no room for those over-zealous types. Thank you for the work you do.

IF "I" issue you a ticket...I'm not JUDGE and JURY. YOU GET YOUR DAY IN COURT....like everyone else.

"I" can offer you leniency AND not issue a ticket - "I" have discretionary authority - "I" get to pick who "I" issue a citation to and who I do not issue a citation to. "I" choose who "I" arrest and who "I" don't arrest.

The LAW provides me with that authority - As a law enforcement officer "I" cite or arrest who "I" want, when "I" want!

"I" don't tell you how to do your job - and in exchange...unless you are a police officer/Warden/deputy sheriff - you don't tell me how to do mine.

WOW!-Enough said:

It appears LE's are just like the CC delegates and DNR Biologist's. Far superior intellectually in everyway to us unethical lowly hunters. Clearly "I" know very little.

Question how do shooting hours work in states like WY? Maybe the LE'S in WY do not possess the same "discretionary" gene born unto the LE's in WI once they pin on that badge.

What?.....

Mike, here is a better example:

An officer pulls someone over and says: Sir, I'm writing you a speeding citation because I believe you were traveling over the speed limit. I licked my finger as you were passing and could feel it"

Ufortunately, this stuff happens. I had a Trooper pull me over because my truck plate weight limit. Stated he has the same truck and my topper put it over. No weighing just his opinion. He wrote a citation and I had to battle it out with the DA office. He never checked my VIn sticker in my door jam which clearly proved him wrong. The DA office still attempted to plead my citation down. I said no as they didnt have proof and my VIN stated otherwise. I wasted too much time.

Yors in conserven

Buford T Justice

WI-CC Delegate-64 years

Chairman-I Know Whats Right For Y'all Committee

Co-Chair- Hunters No Dick Squat Committee

You can twist my words anyway you like - I am trying to explain to you what a law enforcement officer can do and not do! I am using myself (as a law enforcement officer) as an example - this is the way it is. You don't like it - I guess I'm sorry!

That is what a LEO can and cannot do -

Gietz : You're right - I can look at your vehicle, and issue you a citation for "Unreasonable and imprudent speed" - don't even need a radar cocking/reading.

Would I do it - never had, but I could and write the ticket.

So what does that have to do with anything?

No one here can stay focused - what about this...what about that - Bullshit!

My apology man - I wasn't aware you were a State certified Law Enforcement Officer.

Imagine my embarrassment....you know exactly what police officers can do and not do...don't you?

Why we have your attention - why don't you explain to us what a "Terry Stop" might be in a Conservation setting? Or, as a Warden perhaps you'd like to define "Probable Cause" for us and how that applies to an arrest.. Perhaps you can explain the verbiage "curtilage" and how it applies to a search warrant?

Gietz -

May be you'd like to chit chatty with us on an "arrest" and "un-arrest"? I'm sure you'd like to share what a "knock and talk" is and how that happens and how wardens would apply this!

Yep, just one more guy that knows it all!

You talk in circles - Of course I cannot cite someone for 54 in a 55. DUH! Tell me something I don't know.

Mike - I didn't tell you how to do your job? Really?

Mike sez:"

"BloodTrail, your attitude is a good example of why we need clearly defined laws. Just because you or others have received some training does not make you judge and jury, granting leniency at your whim. Your job is to uphold laws as they are written, not insert your own discretionary interpretations of them. That is why we have appeals and the Supreme courts, to interpret poorly written laws. As a LEO, you should be jumping up and down with joy about any law that leaves little to interpretation and discretion."

You don't HAVE A CLUE what my job entails! You THINK you do....I suggest getting an application and signing up.

You talk in circles - Of course I cannot cite someone for 54 in a 55. DUH! Tell me something I don't know.

Mike - I didn't tell you how to do your job? Really?

Mike sez:"

"BloodTrail, your attitude is a good example of why we need clearly defined laws. Just because you or others have received some training does not make you judge and jury, granting leniency at your whim. Your job is to uphold laws as they are written, not insert your own discretionary interpretations of them. That is why we have appeals and the Supreme courts, to interpret poorly written laws. As a LEO, you should be jumping up and down with joy about any law that leaves little to interpretation and discretion."

You don't HAVE A CLUE what my job entails! You THINK you do....I suggest getting an application and signing up.

You have untrained, unfamiliar people (citizens) with absolutely NO training or education in law, law enforcement and WHO think they know what it's all about....but honestly don't have a clue to what's going on.

They have never got a college degree in police science, never graduated from a recruit school. They have never ever issued a citation, never confronted a suspect, never stopped someone at 2 AM in the morning to question someone in a dark alley, but yep, they know it all!

Just ask them!

This is no different than me speaking with Aaron Rogers about a play change the Packers are thinking of going with.

I don't have a freakin clue to what they should do.

I'd tell Aaron - go with the coaches and players...I am not one so ask those guys.

I guess I would ask the professional players what they thought first?

Ya think?

Instead of talking out your rear ends, listen to those that know what there talking about!

Over zealous work mates?

Are you for real?

I know a TON of wardens and I don't know one "over jealous work mate"...

And we should change a law because MAYBE...just MAYBE one exists?

"When is law is broken the warden has a case rather than the warden citing for Pre-crime and them making the sportsman lose time from work and $$$ to clear his name"

OMG - "PRE-CRIME" What the hell is "pre-crime"?

Where do you make this stuff up?

First off there is no criminal element here at all. NONE!!

This is a "Civil Forfeiture" - NOT a crime!!! This is treated the same as a ordinance violation.

You get "fined" THATS IT...

And what if the "sportsman was guilty" he would still lose time from work ad $$$ to clear his name.

Every "assumes" that anyone cited is NOT GUILTY - WOW?

Bow Tech - ya get that law degree from a cereal box top??

You really need to stick to things you know...and this is not one of them...

Please answer the following since I am not an LE and could not possibly have the same discretionary intellect of an LE:

How do shooting hours work in other states, that they could not possibly work in WI?

Are the conditions in WI, so different than those in other states that the LE's need additional discretion powers?

Is the WI hunter just more prone to illegality that we require "extra" regulation, than those in other states? Does the sun not rise in the east and set in the west, or is WI different?

Ill answer your questions - as you requested.

(a). I don't know how shooting hours work in other states, nor do I care.

(b). I don't know what the "conditions" of WI and other states are.

(c). I don't know if the WI hunter is prone to more illegality than other states, I don't know.

(d). Yes, the sun set in west and rises in the east in Wisconsin -

There ya go! Hope that helps!

And that gets under your skin...doesn't it?

You can call it arrogance - you can call me....late to dinner - it means nothing too me. I'm answering questions based upon my experience. Period.

If you don't like that - I'm sorry.

Bring all you want to testimony - it bears nothing on the subject at hand! Remember Mike... you get 3 minutes - choose your words wisely.

From what I'm seeing here...it wont matter if you show or not...you have no argument!

You on the other hand much like Gietz, Bow Tech and HuntNfish - know nothing of the job or what it requires and the law we are speaking of.

Christ sake - your BIG buddy Bow Tech thinks this is a CRIME!!!

OMG -

We are all still waiting for you to school us on some terminology - or are you busy looking that up?

Geitz writes:

"I should not be interrogated because I'm walking out of the woods with my legally uncased gun after hunting hours because of the wardens own belief of what "pursuing" is."

Really?

Do you even know what the definition of what an "interrogation" is?

You show us really how little you know Geitz.

Customarily "interrogations" occur in a custodial setting!!! In custody! - An "interview" takes place away from office/jail. Commonly referred to as a "field interview".

Ya just cannot make this stuff up!

And you want people to believe you know what your talking about?

Please.....

You may wish to dabble in municipal ordinance law as well and as it applies to things like trespassing and such...

Keep ya busy.

Of course you don't, you apparently also don't see anything wrong with proclaiming (several times) that you're an officer as you run around this forum swearing and calling people idiots. I'm guessing that your emotional outbursts are not doing any favors for the stereotype some people have for law enforcement, and that is an unfortunate thing especially at a time that due to recent events law enforcement needs all the support they can get.

And to think, had you not used your real name and had you not made a point to tell everyone multiple times that you're law enforcement you could have ran around this forum as much as you wanted getting loud and emotional making it clear you have a real problem with anyone who dares to disagree with you (as you clearly have) and none of us would have known that this guy who seems to have trouble controlling his emotions is an active law enforcement officer. Just sayin ;-)

I am not hiding behind a fictions name (CJ) and yes, I am a LEO and have been one for many years. I think it's (a.) relevant - because what we are talking about here is a law and after all, I enforce laws and

b.) - This is MY thread - I authored it. (You can start your own)

and...

(c.) My professional and life experiences. It should be looked upon as just that. It should not be looked upon as bragging, tooting my own horn or show boating!

I do this stuff all the time, its not brain surgery like some would like everyone to believe.

And because I say this...now I am "being smarter than everyone else" - Really? Well I have not heard from anyone else with the same credentials and background yet?

Emotional Outbursts - Really?

You may be a little "thinned skinned" my friend. But I can "tone" it down I would think. We are in an age when we don't want to "offend" anyone after all.

And while we are at it CJ...what is your "stereotype" of law enforcement, now that you bring it up.

It's evident you have one and not a positive one at that!

In closing - I'll work on my emotional outburst and here's a little nugget fer ya all!

I have people that disagree with me everyday. I don't take it personal.

It usually starts with my wife and ends with people like you CJ! :^)

The only "problem" I have with people like you that disagree with me, is their inability (most) to truthfully say who they are. Sad

FYI, I deal strickly with civil and contract law. Pull up your skirt and understand sarcasism.

It is ironic the people who think they know most, really don't know. In my profession, it is suprising how many law enforcement do not know statutory and case law.

I promise not to throw up the "Grand Poobah" picture agan though.Lol

Nice attempt to portray me as someone who does not care for law enforcement, that couldn't be further from the truth. I support law enforcement and always have, and I've also always thought it to be unfortunate that a lot of the negative feelings some people have for law enforcement are based on the actions of just a few.

"The only "problem" I have with people like you that disagree with me, is their inability (most) to truthfully say who they are. Sad"

Because knowing my address, date of birth, and criminal history would help you in what way? Knowledge is power? Is it the power you seek? I read and listen to people's opinions everyday and I don't feel the need to know their complete history, even when I don't agree with them. Wonder why I don't seek that type of strange power/control, or, for that matter why most people don't? Huh.

I have not responded to anyone that has not first responded to me in a post.

There are more than 60 posters on Bowsite and we have basically 4 that cant leave this alone.

"went all Springer on me" Wow - is that new? Quite the witty statement my friend - here's a tip / don't quit your lawyer gig and stay with the day job!

Geitz says:

"In my profession, it is surprising how many law enforcement do not know statutory and case law."

BT says: "In my profession it's funny how many lawyers don't know how to write a proper sentence."

You should have wrote..."how many law enforcement officers (or professionals) do not know statutory and case law."

And you want people to take you serious as well Geitz?...Apparently cannot even draft a sentence - perhaps your paralegal does that all for you?

Now you can pull up your "pantaloons" and understand sarcasm. (Whatever that means)...

You'd be surprised how many lawyers I know that cannot get a case off the ground. Very few are worth their weight. Of course talk is cheap until you talk to an attorney!

Ya, ya talk about personal attacks?

I've had a squad car circling my block several times this evening. I wish I didn't have my name on here:(

Unfortunately, this thread has turned way of topic. How law enforcement works vs. a definition of hunting times....

If I were a warden, I would be please to have something defined to a "T" so I would not have to deal with it. But maybe some like the idea of making issues.....

I see no reason why a warden wouldn't want this. It makes their life much more easy. Unless they just want to bust people.

There is no reason an encounter with a warden should not be like this.... He asks for your license and how was your hunt....a bit a small talk and each wishing the other a good day.

This is how it is in other states, yet some of our wardens still believe it is still neccessary to hide behind the bush.

Here's something to keep you busy.

As we all know of your great love and affection for the State "Youth Programs" across Wisconsin...

We are now seriously discussing a Youth Hunt for Black Bears. I think that will pass as well.

Take some time and look into that.

First - The Rules of this Forum require that you state your name.

Well apparently, we know to start off, your someone who cannot follow rules! Either you do not know how or you just refuse to. Either way it does not look good at all.

Ya make us all look bad....

Secondly, there is an issue of creditability to deal with. Are you creditable in what you say and claim?

And lastly, are you ashamed of who you are or perhaps maybe...what you have done?

When I speak to someone, I like to know who I am talking to. There is no need to hide in the dark here.

No one's driving out to your house and toilet papering your yard!

I may soap Mike's windows however....

Put your real name down and man up to the plate for Christ's sake!

Has nothing to do with power/control? Do you have power and control because you know who I am? You look hard enough you know my address and phone number.

Feel a lot of power and control now?

Ok then...do the right thing! Obey the rules of the forum and come out from the darkness my friend!

Unless you are thinking about having their own weekend, unlimited tags.....good luck with that.

Let us get away for law enforcement and to one of the original questions.... As a WCC delegate, how do you justify voting against what your public voted for?

There ya go - and there's more squads from where that one came from so pay close attention!

Once I finish "soaping" Mike's house I will TP yours!

Seriously - the wardens don't want anything new on this at all. They have no opinion however and cannot publically speak on this topic. And to think I voted for Walker - anyway....

As a previous deputy Warden I know what works and what will not for our Wardens and to keep things they way they are - it works just fine!

Place a warden in a wooded area and wait for someone to shoot - IS NUTZ!

Place a warden in a woods and wait till someone blows a deer grunt call and bangs the antlers together...make more sense and is safer.

So - you'd like to be in the woods waiting for someone to shoot - count me out!

Sleep tight Geitz!

Only open to youth who acquired a tag in lottery or have received a tag from an adult.

As clearly stated before, people who will shoot after "hunting hours" are going to shoot after "shooting hours".

And why are they waiting for someone to shoot? Is their only purpose is to bust someone?

Sorry BT, you're digging a hole way too deep. Answer the WCC delagate question because as you said, wardens have no say.

I covered this already - where have you been?

As a delegate I voted the way my County wanted me to vote.

They elected me and I followed their direction.

Now - am I required to - no I am not!

But I thought it was the best way to go based upon the information I developed and shared with the rest of the delegates at the Convention!

You are sleep deprived my friend.

Right now they are NOT waiting for anyone to shoot.

And yes, the reason the wardens are in the field is to arrest or cite someone for a violation(s) if one occurs.

Right now if some partakes in a hunting activity - blows a duck call with a loaded firearm, rattles antlers with a nocked arrow/bow - law enforcement can take action. They do not have to wait for a bullet to go flying over their head.

THATS the difference.

If a new law is put in place a person can blow a duck call, pull a string and make his decoys shake in the water and run his robo-duck and until he ACTUALLY shoots - no violation. You can "hunt" till the cows come home - until you SHOOT then it a violation!!!

So you could blow your grunt call, rattle antlers, hit your bleat call all way after hours, flick that deer decoy tail a few more times as well...10-15 minutes if you like and NO Violation.

Until you actually shoot an arrow or a bolt...NO VIOLATION.

I think that is WRONG.

I think it's wrong to have a warden in the field waiting until someone SHOOTS as well. Couldn't blame a warden if she/he said "screw it"...too dangerous.

Damn, I need my original name back, Pat. Boomer1

Next?

No one needs to post nothing if they choose not to. No gun to anyone's head.

And really there's only about 4 of you sad folks that don't get it and cannot leave this alone.

Like your inability to distinguish between a "crime" and a "civil forfeiture" Bow Tech - you have no clue what your talking about here.

You've shown everyone here your level of intelligence on this matter and it's time now for you to find something else to occupy your time with!

"Angry" and "Emotional" - I know we are now in an age when we don't want to "offend" anyone - we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings in 2016. We need to be politically correct - warm and fuzzy!

I've been as respectfully as anyone else has been to me...maybe you need to find a quiet place Bow Tech...

Good Hunting!!

What you fail to comprehend is that I don't care who you are or what your occupation might be. I also don't care who these other people are that post on this or any other forum. I come to internet forums to read other people's opinions, get a laugh, maybe learn a thing or two,and partake in the conversation at times. I can still respect an opinion even if don't know the person behind it. On the other hand, you Bloodtrail seem to have a habit of communicating with almost anyone on this forum whether they post their complete full name (and date of birth) or not, until you start getting upset with someone when you can't force them to agree with you and that is when you get louder and louder repeating their name 5 or more times in a single post and demanding their identity. Keep telling yourself that behavior has nothing to do with power and control or even maybe just a very odd insecurity cause it's your story tell it however you wish.

"Feel a lot of power and control now?"

As I stated before, I have no interest or desire to have power or control (or knowledge of someone's identity) over anyone especially when it's someone posting on the internet, even when my undies are in a bunch and I'm steaming mad. I guess we can agree to disagree and realize that you and I are different in that respect.

Learn to follow directions - follow rules...post your name.

Simple.

Let's move on..

Thanks -

Pat

Yes exactly- Why must we leave it up to the LE determine "intent". Yes I could be doing all of those things without discharging a weapon at an animal. Be a complete legal and ethical hunter (except in WI). Again what makes WI so different than other states?

So if I loaded my gun on the opening day of deer season 30 minutes before hunting hours my "intent" in WI is to kill a deer prior to legal hunting hours, but in WY I am an legal and ethical sportsman? That is why this rule is necessary for WI? Please explain how you determine that?

What if I am gun deer hunting in WI hunting solo, only possess a "buck" tag, but raise my scoped gun at "doe" during legal hunting hours would I would be considered "doe-hunting?" Could an LE say my intent was to hunt does without possessing a doe tag and without ever firing a shot?

BT, only four people? You far too easily dismiss the 2,000 plus people who took the time to attend the spring meetings and vote.

THAT is where your arrogance arises from.

This is from a guy that dioesnt know the difference between a CRIME and a CIVIL FORFITURE....

You have no idea what your talking about and you have proved it time and time again...

"Buck, because it is the job of LE to enforce laws, not make them. That is why any LE official should be happy with a well defined law that leaves little to interpretation"

Three things Captain Mike -

(A). Really? Just so I get this straight...it's the job of LE to enforce laws and not make them - NO KIDDNG? You figured that out by yourself?

(B). Law Enforcement IS happy with the way the law is written now and there is NO need to change it.

(C). Having NEVER been a police officer/warden how would YOU know what law enforcement would like?

Some interesting points?

Pat

Absolutely!

The way things are now from what I understand is there is NO input from the Warden Force on this at all.

UNBELIEVEABLE...

These are the men and women - the PROFESSIONAL people that deal with this day in and day out!

I myself have offered what I can in support of the Wardens.

The same PROFESSIONAL people on tbe congress?

And I don't know

why I cannot write

in paragraphs ..... it

might be because I want people

to listen to me or....

I just want to feel important.

Here is the deal BT. Answer the questions at hand. Either you can answer or you are rifling off at the mouth .

IMO, your actions and the actions of the WCC should result in the immediate dissolution.

Boomer1

You need to take a breathe man - you came on here very late in the game and your question has been answered many moons ago my friend!

This thread is about hunting/shooting hours and has nothing to do with the WCC. Read my original post if you become lost in all this.

You really need to stay focused.

I voted for shooting hours and so did my county. Why did my delegate vote for hunting hours?

Instead of burning up your computer, get on the phone and call your delegates and ask them?

Let us know how that works out!

Good Hunting!

The "Process" is flawed. No use for it anymore.

OH, by the way smuck, I am quite easy to contact.

Again.... tell us how the delegate know more than the public. Or do you have to have a badge to know right and wrong.

I was thinking about taking a crap in the woods but realize I should go thru the process. Although the majority of people around me say go, my WCC delegate said I can't cause he knows better and doesn't know what I ate last night.

I'm torn....now.....literally.

I'm glad the WCC wanted full inclusion of crossbows before they didn't. Thank Lee.

I also liked the alternative to EAB which was hand written by the Big Game DNR guy.

I'm proud of our one of a kind process.

It's like it's so easy to piss and moan and wet themselves here...if ya need to know, why not pick up the phone and call you OWN delegates?

Sounds like a good idea to me!

My County tied - my wife and I voted "yes" but changed our votes the next day - so in essence the vote FAILED in my County!

Over 600 delegates voted to REJECT this. They listened to information and THEY decided that this was something that was not needed.

The Counties elect these delegates.

If they are not happy with them - take them out of office and replace them with who you want!

I find it interesting that you have not run for office then and changed things?

I guess your just one of those folks that is happy to not get involved like others. You like to watch from the sidelines and piss and moan -

We know your type my friend...

If you don't like it - work to change it.

Naw.....I'd rather go thru my legislator and bypass the political "process". Did the Dept at least give you flowers before they bent you over?

And huntnfish has spent more time fighting for the rights of sportsmen than you could ever imagine. You better start realizing who you are talking about and leave your little pp out of it.

"Naw.....I'd rather go thru my legislator and bypass the political "process".

Are you even on this planet? Do you even read what you write?

Congratulations Huntfish for all the wonderful things you do for sportsman - Now get behind this and help law enforcement help the sportsman!

Naw.....I'd rather go thru my legislator and bypass the political "process". Did the Dept at least give you flowers before they bent you over?

And huntnfish has spent more time fighting for the rights of sportsmen than you could ever imagine. You better start realizing who you are talking about and leave your little pp out of it."

Hmm, I find this post quotable and I'm not sure why.

Worry about adding your real name to this site and follow the rules like we all are required to.

When you follow the rules - we all win!

I'm fairly certain 95% of bowsiters understand the "process" but for you I will explain.

The "process" is that the public votes in the WCC spring hearings and the delegates advise the the NRB of changes the public would like made.

The political "process" is the current situation where the public votes one way but the uber smart delegates decide the public is wrong and advise the opposite of public opinion. (Obviously, unknown if they get flowers but they appear to be flexible at their knees)

Is there a University for WCC delegates? Is there a course online? Something in a strip mall next to chiropractors?

Bloodtrail I thought you said you had no time to respond to people who don't have their full name, date of birth, and social security number in their profile. Apparently that was just another one of your loud, babbling, emotional outbursts as it appears that you have no intention of following through with what you said. Besides, I really wasn't directly talking to you, I was commenting on a post someone else wrote that I felt was quotable. Why is it you feel the need to control and order around everyone that posts in this thread? I find that behavior to be very odd.

Just learn to follow the rules.

But, as BT said, let's stick to the subject. As he asked for in his initial post, he asked for, and has received, comments on the subject he brought up. Apparently he really did not want all comments, but rather only those which he agrees with. In my opinion, a sad representation of a person who is supposed to represent the opinion of the public.

Just recently, he advises people to complain to their county rep. What I wonder is this. Being a strong advocate for the "process," why didn't he remand his fellow representatives who voted in opposition to what he knew was an overwhelming majority of their constituents wishes? I don't get a warm, fuzzy feeling that he really believes in any process other than one which contradicts the wishes of the majority.

Ya, I've been on the WCC a couple of months and I have such a "strong voice" - do you read what you write Bow Tech - geeeezzz?

I have been nothing but polite and informative on the issue.

You don't like what your hearing....so you twist like a dirty t-shirt on a clothes line.

I'm just about done here.

Have any of you men been energetic enough to contact your OWN COUNTY delegates regarding this issue and ASK them why they voted the way they did.

OR, do you still find it easier to play out your frustrations on this forum?

I suggest gentlemen, that you make some phone calls and get some answers from your own people and stop crying and whining on this public forum.

You elected those people, they answer to you! If you make the time to contact them, I think they would bend over backwards to help you!

Good Luck fella's!

Bow Tech sez:

"You are only showing us that LOEs are emotional and prone to outbursts and clearly use poor discretion at time"

Interesting paragraph. Ill try and be warm and fuzzy here so I don't offend you. But what is a "LOEs?" Again spoken from a guy who thinks this matter is a CRIME when it is a "civil forfeiture" and now he refers to me as a "LOEs" -

And you want people to take you seriously?

What the hell is a LOEs"

If your referring to Law Enforcement Officer that would be (LEO)

Really?

I personally would have liked shooting hours too, due to one warden some years ago who made bad "assumptions" and "guesses".

Elk, please accept my apology for not meeting with your high expectations - goes to show ya, hard as one may try your not going too please everyone. Damn!

While I have your attention however, I have to take notice with your contact with the warden "some years back"...

Let me see if I get this right?

You're saying because (1) warden (in your opinion) got it wrong - you support changing an entire law based solely on that contact?

Now wait...READ THIS....

Isn't that just like our friend Officer Smith - who makes a bad arrest on a charge of disorderly conduct?

Because he made a poor choice - we should now change the entire law surrounding disorderly conduct?

It makes no sense!!!!

If we had people standing in line because they have been wronged by this CURRENT law Id say "Hip Hip Hooray" change the law.

How many people does this effect a year? Nobody REALLY!

Does anyone know or do they "guess"?

Thanks Elk -

Happy Hunting!

Of course were not talking about disorderly conduct are we? No were talking about shooting hours. Keep to the topic, one of my expectations again.

The warden I had a problem with flat out lied about me hunting late. He said and wrote that he witnessed me in a tree at 12 minutes after. I wasn't in a tree that night and my hunting partner knew that fact too.

My opinion is, it would be "cut and dried" if shooting hours replaced hunting hours.

What happened? Don't leave us hang?

And no - we are not talking about DC - but we are talking about changing a law based upon a poor contact with a LEO are we not?

So you choose - DC, trespassing, shining after hours, open intoxicants in a motor vehicle, failure to stop at a stop sign...Ect,ect,ect

The point is NOT the violation as it is, we have a problem with a warden and we run to change the law.

And that - I have to say (take no offense) I believe is fool hearted.

If the new law went into effect Elk, Would you be more happy if the warden said you shot your gun and you didn't? And your buddy could back you up?

Just because you change the law...do you think the warden cannot say you did shoot your gun...and you really didn't after hours?

If the warden is a liar - is changing a law going to make him truthful? If you have a LEO that's not truthful you don't change a law to fix it...

Thanks Elk...

So again as a delegate of the CC you did not like the outcome of the vote and changed it the next day. How does that work? Can anyone change their vote the next day, or this this vote manipulation only available to the chosen few?

The Conservation Congress over-riding the will of the people of Wisconsin since 1934.

My point is there has been, suspect there is now, and in the future be bad wardens who can make bad choices and decisions. This would make it easier.

"we are talking about changing a law based upon a poor contact with a LEO are we not?" Nope, were talking about making changes because hunters were asked for input and they gave it.

"DC, trespassing, shining after hours, open intoxicants in a motor vehicle, failure to stop at a stop sign...Ect,ect,ect" Not the subject again, try to stay on track please.

Again JMO, but it seems to be the same opinion of the majority. Your entitle to yours as well. But why should yours carry more weight?

IF the new law would pass it would change several things for law enforcement.

Number 1 - It puts LE in greater amount of harms way!! And for that point alone we should not consider this.

Our current law: Allows for a warden to observe a party rattling antlers 10 minutes after hours and blowing a grunt call with bow - BOOM - violation - the warden can act immediately!

New Law: Blow your grunt call till the cows come home, rattle your antlers well into the night and while your at it - use that string to twitch the deer decoy tail a few more times. All the time waiting for you deer to come closer and closer.

No Violation yet - until YOU send that Crossbow bolt sailing. Or a arrow flying or a slug...

All this time the warden stays hidden observing the violation until someone SHOOTS. THEN and ONLY THEN can he take action....IF he's NOT SHOT in the process.

How ridiculous?

It's dangerous enough with the current law - now wait until the warden cannot intervene until a shot is taken?

Cannot blame a warden if he/she says "screw it" they don't pay me enough to make that potential sacrifice.

We all believe in Hunters Safety - but we are all OK with sending a game warden into a situation that requires someone to SHOOT FIRST before he can make a field contact?

That' the first concern.

Here's the second:

We give our Wardens guns. Right?

We tell them that they can protect themselves and others (citizens) by being able to justifiably take another persons life in the line of duty.

We are good with that - Right?

But somehow we lose our confidence in Conservation Wardens when it comes to Hunting/Shooting Hours.

All of a sudden the same warden that can decide whether he/she can take the life of another in the line of duty - SOMEHOW cannot figure out the difference between violating the Hunting hours and not figuring them out properly.

The Wardens have become so inept at this we need to change the law so they (wardens) can figure this out easier?

So we trust them with guns in a potential shooting situation - BUT, they cannot figure out hunting rules and regulations? HMMMMMMMMMMM........

Does this make any sense?

That's the problem I have.

Why should your opinion carry any more weight?

I don't know should it? Does yours?

I cannot explain this any better.

There is NO problem with the law as it sits now.

Best Afield

Fact is, as LE, you more than others, should know that the more you talk under questioning, the more potential information you divulge. You've given enough that a jury of your peers would find you guilty of arrogance and elitism. You continue to denigrate the CC with your words. Feel free to ignore this, as your counsel, that would be my advice to you.

No one changed the vote -

This a great example how people embellish things, they get twisted out of place and before you know it - corruption is running wild!

With the way me and my wife voted the County tied - it is still printed on the voting results - look it up.

My wife and I changed our minds after doing some research and we thought damn - should have voted NO- so in essence "on paper" it shows a tie - but we did vote against it - a little late.

OMG!

I guess you feel a little foolish? You should have waited for the explanation to huntfish's confusion and rush to judgement.

So in closing I'd like to "Thank" most of you for some spirited debate on this issue.

Honestly I though we'd see more opposed on this issue.

We will just have to wait and see on this matter like our friend Skookumjt says this is ONLY advisory to the NRB and so far the NRB has not addressed this issue.

I suspect sometime in 2017 the "may" take this up again.

In the meantime -

Shoot Straight!

OMG - your one frustrated person Mike....

Time for you to let go and find something more relaxing. I am!

And it doesn't include you!

Put me in the category of agreeing with hunting hours which removes lots of ambiguity. I'm in a tree in the dark in the am and I get out of my tree when it is dark in the pm. I'm never hunting during that time but I love being in the woods early and late. Hunting hours is sort of a no-brainer to me but everyone is entitled to their opinions. It is a shame though when so many opine the same way and that is not upheld when it matters.

Carry on gents. Let's see this one hit 300 posts.

I know it's not as fun as poking at me, calling me corrupt and basically a piece of crap - but give her a try shall we?

Call someone who represents you and ask them.

Because clearly you do not like what I have to say and that wont change!

We're done!

300 hundred? That was like 50 posts ago!

Have a great night!

BT

+1