Did Game Warden Have the Right to Search My Car?

Is there anything wrong with sustaining your living and doing so in (more) comfort?

Absolutely not, but then we're moving into the space of personal choice vs. necessity.

It's my personal choice to exercise my rights.  Just because it is a personal choice does not make my rights any less.

But I see where your own personal choice is to give up your rights.

-Allen

I'm not sure where we're going with this.  I never intended to say that someone using a $3k kayak for subsistence fishing was a problem.  What I was saying is I didn't like being lectured about "subsistence" by someone who is pushing a luxury item.

But since that person said they weren't lecturing me, then I'm over it.

Ben, were you trying to say that a $3000 watercraft somehow puts the opinion at a different level.  What if it was a subsistence fisherman with a $5000 runabout?  It's all relative ...

-Allen

I can't say that I know enough about that hypothetical person's situation to say what they're using the boat for.  I guess I was trying to talk about the idea of "luxury" items for sake of gathering food.   Would that person need the $5000 runabout to sustain their living?  Could they make due with a $2K tin can?  Was that purchase of the boat an economically wise decision for the person?

To me the financial situation of the person has little bearing on validity either side in this debate.  And a $3K kayak is likely more seaworthy and safe than a $2K tin can on the ocean.

-Allen

But is a $3K kayak more seaworthy and safe than a $800 kayak?

Is it only considered subsistence if you live in a hut with a dirt floor in a hand made boat made from found objects? Is this a requirement of the state of Ca for the tribes on the klamath? I better go let em know to hide theyre motors and all move into roundhouses.

Ben, were you trying to say that a $3000 watercraft somehow puts the opinion at a different level.  What if it was a subsistence fisherman with a $5000 runabout?  It's all relative ...

-Allen

I can't say that I know enough about that hypothetical person's situation to say what they're using the boat for.  I guess I was trying to talk about the idea of "luxury" items for sake of gathering food.   Would that person need the $5000 runabout to sustain their living?  Could they make due with a $2K tin can?  Was that purchase of the boat an economically wise decision for the person?

To me the financial situation of the person has little bearing on validity either side in this debate.  And a $3K kayak is likely more seaworthy and safe than a $2K tin can on the ocean.

-Allen

But is a $3K kayak more seaworthy and safe than a $800 kayak?

Is it only considered subsistence if you live in a hut with a dirt floor in a hand made boat made from found objects? Is this a requirement of the state of Ca for the tribes on the klamath? I better go let em know to hide theyre motors and all move into roundhouses.

I never said I was in agreement with the state's classification of the Yurok either.

Is there anything wrong with sustaining your living and doing so in (more) comfort?

Absolutely not, but then we're moving into the space of personal choice vs. necessity.

It's my personal choice to exercise my rights.  Just because it is a personal choice does not make my rights any less.

But I see where your own personal choice is to give up your rights.

-Allen

I'm not sure where we're going with this.  I never intended to say that someone using a $3k kayak for subsistence fishing was a problem.  What I was saying is I didn't like being lectured about "subsistence" by someone who is pushing a luxury item.

But since that person said they weren't lecturing me, then I'm over it.

One man's luxury item is another man's necessity.  $3K isn't overly extravagant to draw the conclusions you are drawing here.

-Allen

Is there anything wrong with sustaining your living and doing so in (more) comfort?

Absolutely not, but then we're moving into the space of personal choice vs. necessity.

It's my personal choice to exercise my rights.  Just because it is a personal choice does not make my rights any less.

But I see where your own personal choice is to give up your rights.

-Allen

I'm not sure where we're going with this.  I never intended to say that someone using a $3k kayak for subsistence fishing was a problem.  What I was saying is I didn't like being lectured about "subsistence" by someone who is pushing a luxury item.

But since that person said they weren't lecturing me, then I'm over it.

One man's luxury item is another man's necessity.  $3K isn't overly extravagant to draw the conclusions you are drawing here.

-Allen

Again, not talking about the use of certain watercraft for subsistence. I agree that doesn't make much of a difference.  However, in an economic sense, it isn't efficient. 

Is there anything wrong with sustaining your living and doing so in (more) comfort?

Absolutely not, but then we're moving into the space of personal choice vs. necessity.

It's my personal choice to exercise my rights.  Just because it is a personal choice does not make my rights any less.

But I see where your own personal choice is to give up your rights.

-Allen

I'm not sure where we're going with this.  I never intended to say that someone using a $3k kayak for subsistence fishing was a problem.  What I was saying is I didn't like being lectured about "subsistence" by someone who is pushing a luxury item.

But since that person said they weren't lecturing me, then I'm over it.

Not pushing a luxury item, not lecturing, and my choice of craft has nothing to do with the validity of my expressed opinion. Hopefully thats not considered lecturing, wouldnt want any skin busting open

I'll just say this:

1. I support the privilege of people to fish and hunt for recreation completely, and more than willing to support that to the end of the earth.
2. If people need to fish and hunt to sustain their living, I completely support that too.  In fact, I think the state does a piss poor job of supporting that activity.  But for the vast majority of us, that doesn't apply.
3. But the rules and regulations are set to protect the natural resources of california.  I'm going to support enforcement 100% and am happy when they receive the resources and tools that they need to enforce the rules. 

(Support enforcement, not legislation - some of those rules are just stupid but we all have to follow them equally, or get involved in changing them)

edit: added 3

Rarely.

But  i went back through and seems to me like a lively exchange of ideas on the proposition that fishing/hunting is a privilege. Good stuff Certainly didnt see any one target or lecturing or feeding.

Then we're settled.  Whats next? Let's talk about the broncos.

Ok, i know someone will enjoy this. 

Feel free to move to funny stuff.

I'll just say this:

1. I support the privilege of people to fish and hunt for recreation completely, and more than willing to support that to the end of the earth.
2. If people need to fish and hunt to sustain their living, I completely support that too.  In fact, I think the state does a piss poor job of supporting that activity.  But for the vast majority of us, that doesn't apply.
3. But the rules and regulations are set to protect the natural resources of california.  I'm going to support enforcement 100% and am happy when they receive the resources and tools that they need to enforce the rules. 

(Support enforcement, not legislation - some of those rules are just stupid but we all have to follow them equally, or get involved in changing them)

edit: added 3

Good morning Ben.  Ready to start it up again?   

It was never about supporting or not supporting the right to fish.  It's way beyond that.  And harvesting for sustenance or recreation shouldn't affect one's ability to weigh in on this topic.  It's about another right that is equally shared amongst all of us.  I do support enforcement.  I just believe there are other ways to do so without infringing upon that right.

-Allen

Oh, good morning thread.

Re: airlines-  the comparison isn't really fair. I have recently flown several times without ever being searched, and have even taken an unloaded shotgun directly onto a plane. It was all perfectly legal and no one at the airport said a word. If you want to fly but don't want the hassle of being searched, fly general aviation.

Re: supporting enforcement-

Like so many in this forum, I have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. I don't get to pick and choose which parts I like and which parts I don't. If you don't like part of the constitution, by all means advocate for its change. I do support law enforcement. But my sworn oath is to the Constitution. Law enforcement needs to abide by the constitution. The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, the fourteenth amendment applies the fourth amendment to the states.

What airlines? I must have missed that.

Now back to the ruling and why I support it:

I compare this to the industry that I work in.  And yes, I used to be a regulator.

In my industry, if you want to sell XXXX, you have to be registered with a self-regulatory organization.  By registering with the SRO, you are essentially attesting to the idea that you understand the rules and regulations of the industry (and federal laws) and you are subject to their inspection and enforcement.  That SRO, in turn, may come into your office at any time, without a warrant and rummage through your desk.  They can send you a letter that you are required to respond to even if it may incriminate you.  If you choose not to respond to the letter, they can kick you out of the industry.  They can request bank statements, phone logs, e-mail records, and again, you're required to produce or you're subject to enforcement action.  (the one place where an attorney could really help is in testimony - but records still need to be produced).

But people subject themselves to it because its the price of admission. The rules are set and you know them before engaging in the activity.  This is affecting the ability of people to make a living in the industry.  But there's again a choice.  You can choose NOT to be in that industry.  You can choose to go to another industry that is less regulated.  You still have a right to make a living, but you are making a personal choice as to where and how you're doing it.

I find this similar to what we're talking about here in that:

1.  We as fishermen know we need to be licensed.
2.  We have a responsibility to know the rules and regulations of the FGC.
3.  By buying a license, we're subjecting ourselves to the rules.  We know that the DFW officers can search our vehicles at any time.
4.  But by engaging in the activity (fishing) then we're saying that we know the rules and enforcement opportunities, and we are choosing to subject ourselves to them.

It's the choice to engage in the activity that makes it different.  Its almost implied consent. 

None of this is saying that it's FAIR.
------------------------------------
Now to move on to the rights.  The state constitution says we have a right to fish.  But again, it says that there may be restrictions on what we fish for, how we do it, and how much we take.  I think we're all in agreement on that.

Subjecting yourself to the rules and regulations of the DFW does not infringe upon your basic right to fish.  You're still given a right to fish, and still given the right to take what you need.  But you're making a personal choice to fish, and by doing so you're saying that you're going to follow the DFW rules. 

The way I see the rules, this choice is where there's a difference.  We're given a choice whether we choose to fish or not.  We can choose to forage locally.  We can choose to grow crops in our own gardens, we can choose to go to Safeway.

But yes, for me, I still see fishing as a privilege.  The state is allowing all people the privilege to share in the state's natural resources.  That's my own personal stance, and just the way that I think. 

Maybe here's the crux of it ... just because you are WILLING to give up your rights, doesn't mean I should HAVE TO give up mine.

-Allen

Am I willing to give up my rights or have I given them up already by choosing to engage in fishing?

Am I willing to give up my rights or have I given them up already by choosing to engage in fishing?

Using your own logic ... you willingly chose to exercise your privilege to fish, knowing full well the ramifications of that.

-Allen

It means I'm exercising my right to fish, and at the same time I am aware of the ramifications of my choice.