Did Game Warden Have the Right to Search My Car?

I've heard that one before Matt. 

But I've donated as much $$$ to supporting fishing organizations as many others, Keep America Fishing, CS.  We're all allowed to pick our battles and this is not one that tips the scale for me.

It's amazing to me that we as fisherman will fight for our right to fish, fight for our right to hunt, yet allow our 4th Amendment rights to be constantly violated.

Seems appropriate. ....

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

Godwins. Law. Lock it up.

Well here's a poll question:

How many of us have been asked by a warden to open up a hatch/backpack/whatever and how many of us actually said no?

How many of us have been stopped by the highway patrol just to check that we have a license.  And oh, while we're at it, may as well check under the hood for illegal smog modifications.

-Allen

So is eating a privilege as well?

And how does that have anything to do with following rules and regulations or letting a warden search you?

It has to do with your proclamation thst fishing and hunting is a privilege, specifically.  Fishing and hunting are a means to provide food.

How much money does it cost you to go fishing/hunting each year?  In gas cost, bait, equipment, etc? Vacation time off work, lost wages?  Does the value of what you bring home equal or exceed the amount of money you spend to chase game?

Face it, fishing and hunting are recreation, the food that you bring home from it is just a byproduct.

I don't agree.  I think I break even or slightly better, certainly on specific fisheries, crabbing and local rockfishing come to mind.

And your belief that it is "just recreation" explains to me some of your support of unlawful searches.  It's no skin off your back.

-Allen

Well here's a poll question:

How many of us have been asked by a warden to open up a hatch/backpack/whatever and how many of us actually said no?

How many of us have been stopped by the highway patrol just to check that we have a license.  And oh, while we're at it, may as well check under the hood for illegal smog modifications.

-Allen

But none of that is covered by the court's ruling.   Look I understand the idea of the "slippery slope" - but I've yet to see it. While those who have the innate ability to root out conspiracies will see this as the first step towards martial law, I see it as a specific application of a court's ruling on one particular situation.  When you read the original case, the guy was caught red handed.  Instead of admitting to his breaking the law and paying his fine, he decided to sue, even though the warden had at least some suspicion.  It's not like the warden walked up to him randomly and asked to search his car, he was watching the guy.

When I think of the situations when I might be affected by this, I just can't see it being a problem.  Wardens don't just go running around searching cars willy nilly (at least I hope not).  In the court case it specifically mentions circumstances when this type of search is allowed.  The ruling can be considered at the same time as very broad and extremely narrow.

Now, if a cop does a warrantless search or racial profiling without cause, I hope to gosh that he gets crap for it.

I don't see how hunting an fishing is a privilege or recreational it's our right. The United States of America was built off of hunting, fishing, and farming.  Not by going to the store and buying your meat and veggies. But I guess I could stand corrected on this one at the same time with how California is getting about gun laws.

Well here's a poll question:

How many of us have been asked by a warden to open up a hatch/backpack/whatever and how many of us actually said no?

How many of us have been stopped by the highway patrol just to check that we have a license.  And oh, while we're at it, may as well check under the hood for illegal smog modifications.

-Allen

But none of that is covered by the court's ruling.   Look I understand the idea of the "slippery slope" - but I've yet to see it. While those who have the innate ability to root out conspiracies will see this as the first step towards martial law, I see it as a specific application of a court's ruling on one particular situation.  When you read the original case, the guy was caught red handed.  Instead of admitting to his breaking the law and paying his fine, he decided to sue, even though the warden had at least some suspicion.  It's not like the warden walked up to him randomly and asked to search his car, he was watching the guy.

When I think of the situations when I might be affected by this, I just can't see it being a problem.  Wardens don't just go running around searching cars willy nilly (at least I hope not).  In the court case it specifically mentions circumstances when this type of search is allowed.  The ruling can be considered at the same time as very broad and extremely narrow.

Now, if a cop does a warrantless search or racial profiling without cause, I hope to gosh that he gets crap for it.

They run opening weekend checkpoints in deer season all over the state and set up abalone checkpoints, sometimes far inland like on 128 near Boonville. They search your car if you look like you've been fishing or hunting. More of this to come.

So is eating a privilege as well?

And how does that have anything to do with following rules and regulations or letting a warden search you?

It has to do with your proclamation thst fishing and hunting is a privilege, specifically.  Fishing and hunting are a means to provide food.

How much money does it cost you to go fishing/hunting each year?  In gas cost, bait, equipment, etc? Vacation time off work, lost wages?  Does the value of what you bring home equal or exceed the amount of money you spend to chase game?

Face it, fishing and hunting are recreation, the food that you bring home from it is just a byproduct.

I don't agree.  I think I break even or slightly better, certainly on specific fisheries, crabbing and local rockfishing come to mind.

And your belief that it is "just recreation" explains to me some of your support of unlawful searches.  It's no skin off your back.

-Allen

Trust me, I hope to break even too.

But to me there's a difference between fishing/hunting to put food on your table to feed your family and fishing/hunting as a choice to put delicious, healthy, locally caught seafood onto the table.

If it's our state-granted right to fish & hunt, then why do we have to buy licenses? For example, if someone shot a duck to feed his family because they were starving...and didn't have a license, he would then be in violation, right? Just a hypothetical situation...

Well here's a poll question:

How many of us have been asked by a warden to open up a hatch/backpack/whatever and how many of us actually said no?

How many of us have been stopped by the highway patrol just to check that we have a license.  And oh, while we're at it, may as well check under the hood for illegal smog modifications.

-Allen

But none of that is covered by the court's ruling.   Look I understand the idea of the "slippery slope" - but I've yet to see it. While those who have the innate ability to root out conspiracies will see this as the first step towards martial law, I see it as a specific application of a court's ruling on one particular situation.  When you read the original case, the guy was caught red handed.  Instead of admitting to his breaking the law and paying his fine, he decided to sue, even though the warden had at least some suspicion.  It's not like the warden walked up to him randomly and asked to search his car, he was watching the guy.

When I think of the situations when I might be affected by this, I just can't see it being a problem.  Wardens don't just go running around searching cars willy nilly (at least I hope not).  In the court case it specifically mentions circumstances when this type of search is allowed.  The ruling can be considered at the same time as very broad and extremely narrow.

Now, if a cop does a warrantless search or racial profiling without cause, I hope to gosh that he gets crap for it.

They run opening weekend checkpoints in deer season all over the state and set up abalone checkpoints, sometimes far inland like on 128 near Boonville. They search your car if you look like you've been fishing or hunting. More of this to come.

But that's been going on for years, far before the court ruling, if I'm correct.  And did people complain about those?

So is eating a privilege as well?

And how does that have anything to do with following rules and regulations or letting a warden search you?

It has to do with your proclamation thst fishing and hunting is a privilege, specifically.  Fishing and hunting are a means to provide food.

How much money does it cost you to go fishing/hunting each year?  In gas cost, bait, equipment, etc? Vacation time off work, lost wages?  Does the value of what you bring home equal or exceed the amount of money you spend to chase game?

Face it, fishing and hunting are recreation, the food that you bring home from it is just a byproduct.

I don't agree.  I think I break even or slightly better, certainly on specific fisheries, crabbing and local rockfishing come to mind.

And your belief that it is "just recreation" explains to me some of your support of unlawful searches.  It's no skin off your back.

-Allen

Trust me, I hope to break even too.

But to me there's a difference between fishing/hunting to put food on your table to feed your family and fishing/hunting as a choice to put delicious, healthy, locally caught seafood onto the table.

And there you go again. You are projecting your experience on the rest of us. You don't get to do that if you want to argue that this rule is a-ok.

Well here's a poll question:

How many of us have been asked by a warden to open up a hatch/backpack/whatever and how many of us actually said no?

How many of us have been stopped by the highway patrol just to check that we have a license.  And oh, while we're at it, may as well check under the hood for illegal smog modifications.

-Allen

But none of that is covered by the court's ruling.   Look I understand the idea of the "slippery slope" - but I've yet to see it. While those who have the innate ability to root out conspiracies will see this as the first step towards martial law, I see it as a specific application of a court's ruling on one particular situation.  When you read the original case, the guy was caught red handed.  Instead of admitting to his breaking the law and paying his fine, he decided to sue, even though the warden had at least some suspicion.  It's not like the warden walked up to him randomly and asked to search his car, he was watching the guy.

When I think of the situations when I might be affected by this, I just can't see it being a problem.  Wardens don't just go running around searching cars willy nilly (at least I hope not).  In the court case it specifically mentions circumstances when this type of search is allowed.  The ruling can be considered at the same time as very broad and extremely narrow.

Now, if a cop does a warrantless search or racial profiling without cause, I hope to gosh that he gets crap for it.

They run opening weekend checkpoints in deer season all over the state and set up abalone checkpoints, sometimes far inland like on 128 near Boonville. They search your car if you look like you've been fishing or hunting. More of this to come.

But that's been going on for years, far before the court ruling, if I'm correct.  And did people complain about those?

The checkpoint part yes. The consent less searching part no.

So is eating a privilege as well?

And how does that have anything to do with following rules and regulations or letting a warden search you?

It has to do with your proclamation thst fishing and hunting is a privilege, specifically.  Fishing and hunting are a means to provide food.

How much money does it cost you to go fishing/hunting each year?  In gas cost, bait, equipment, etc? Vacation time off work, lost wages?  Does the value of what you bring home equal or exceed the amount of money you spend to chase game?

Face it, fishing and hunting are recreation, the food that you bring home from it is just a byproduct.

I don't agree.  I think I break even or slightly better, certainly on specific fisheries, crabbing and local rockfishing come to mind.

And your belief that it is "just recreation" explains to me some of your support of unlawful searches.  It's no skin off your back.

-Allen

Trust me, I hope to break even too.

But to me there's a difference between fishing/hunting to put food on your table to feed your family and fishing/hunting as a choice to put delicious, healthy, locally caught seafood onto the table.

And there you go again. You are projecting your experience on the rest of us. You don't get to do that if you want to argue that this rule is a-ok.

I really don't see how I'm projecting my experience on the rest of the world, but I'm sorry if I have.  I'm stating my personal opinion as I've said all the way through.  We're all allowed to make our own decisions and I've made mine.  I'm making arguments that are specifically applicable to me, and why I have no problems with the court's ruling.  Remember, they made the ruling, not me. I didn't lobby for the outcome of the ruling, I had no stake in it either way.  I didn't write letters to the court to say, "please allow the DFG to do whatever they want". 

Look, and this is not targeted towards you or Allen (you might be able to surmise who this is targeted to).  But I find it very difficult to be lectured by someone for the "right to feed your family" by someone who is pushing $3,000 MSRP kayaks.

Matt has at least some training in rhetoric. He doesn't have to be poor to advocate for someone in that position, and his affiliation with a kayak company is wholly irrelevant.

And I think I was clear that I am more than supportive of anyone in that position.