That argument sure does get old. What I am or am not doing has nothing to do with my rights. Rights infringement doesn't have to bother you. It does bother me.

Some people just can't understand this Sneaky!

Really?

http://ivn.us/2012/03/06/supreme-court-no-warrant-needed-for-ca-game-wardens-to-stop-cars/
http://www.portersimon.com/law-review/2011/07-01-2011.pdf

New GW - 2000 acre tract of land with visible blinds - entry gate with no house visible - could be the GW figured it was a deer camp. Still learning his turf. If he'd realized it was a residence, he might have just driven in to talk, in lieu of the hunting camp walk-in. I'd cut him some slack.

Essentially it is a hunting 'location' if you hunt from there, and bring game back there to clean/process. Not like he was walking down a residential street banging on doors asking to see licenses. Love all the internet BAs that would just tell him they didn't have to answer. You guys just made a new best friend, especially Sept thru Dec. Maybe is sticks in your craw, but no need to buy trouble.

On the side note of gates, don't get a false sense of security from having an electronic gate. No real barrier to anyone but UPS and door to door salesmen. Law enforcement have 'back doors' entry methods for your safety. Hate to have emergency personnel (ambulance/fire truck) locked out and delayed when you need them. Larger complex gates here are supposed to open from a siren. We had a car broken into in our driveway, and looked at getting a gate. Security company said if its dumb kids they will climb over, and any crook worth his salt knows how to open them. Talked to police, and it turned out the same idiots that broke into our car, also broke into a car a few streets over the same night and they had a gate.

I think our founding fathers would prefer the warden be in trouble in this instance, not the law abiding citizen.

Inspection authority in a different state. Man observed in the act of fishing. Not the TX statutes discussed.

So, yes. Really.

No Sir what gets old is people who insinuate that all LEO's are out to get them and infringe on their rights. For every LEO who gets out of line or makes a mistake there are thousands of daily events where LEO's help citizens that will never be reported nor known. The vast majority take the oath of protect and serve very seriously and put their lives on the line each and every day. So once again, there are certainly overzealous LEO's at times and they should be reported and dealt with by their superiors.

For those who feel peace officers are out to get them and that their objective is to infringe on all of our rights, I suggest you go ride out with an officer several times - it is easy to arrange - after spending several shifts with a patrolling officer you most likely will come away with a whole new appreciation for what and who these officers have to deal with on a daily basis.

I have. In southeast DC. Been there? And I still dislike how this GW encounter went down. It's not that people feel that LEOs are out to get them. That's not required for the infringement of a person's rights. It's that people feel that some LEOs have no respect for a person's rights and walk all over them in the name of "doing their job" while treating every citizen they encounter with distrust. This is a two way street.

An officer who disrespects a person's rights are not likely to be respected themselves.

I understand and have seen first hand how LEOs risk their lives everyday. I got it, and I know they want to go home to their families every night, as do I. But sometimes, officers put themselves in the middle of, or initiate the conflict, again, all under the veil of "doing their job", or the probable outright lie this GW gave for entering the property. Must have been a slow day.

I agree - and as I have stated repeatedly, there are officers who overstep and they should be reigned in. My point is that the vast majority of these folks do an admirable job in tough situations - so this theme or insinuation that if an LEO approaches you they are infringing on you rights is just off base. Again - good and bad in every profession known to man -

Oo

I'm sure the King felt the very same way when colonists decided it was time to declare their independence.

The day we become a nation where we no longer "demand" that authorities respect our rights as citizens, is the day we have lost our charter.

For an officer to ask to see my hunting license while I am working on a tractor, equates to one asking to see my driver's license while I am watching television.

I have Deer, dove, and duck hunted since 1997 and I have never been checked by a game warden on private or public property. I have fished for longer than that and been checked twice in a day by a GW.

Some are friendly some are jack wagons. Only ticket we ever got was for an expired boat registration because it got lost in the US postal system and we forgot. Recently met our local GW at a Whataburger. I approached him and said hi asked if he had been bus seen any big bucks etc. told him we were hunting and he never even asked to see my license.

Perhaps what's being missed is that like many professions these days, as more and more Baby Boomers are retiring, there has been a significant increase in those wanting to start out their careers by making a name for themselves.

From Texas Wildlife Code Chapter 12, some may find "interesting".

""Sec. 11.0191. ENFORCEMENT OF CODE. Law enforcement officers commissioned by the director( reference too TP&W Director) and any other peace officers have the authority to enforce all provisions of this code.""

tlk I don't see anyone insinuating all LEOs are bad or any general LEO bashing going on. I think you seeing things that are not there.

Most of my LEO encounters have been fine and pleasant.

The GW at my farm in Houston county (Eddie Lehr) is as fine an officer as you will ever meet.

Maybe so, but just talking reality. Unless I want to be a test case in a courtroom I see no reason to act evasive and encourage him to focus on me because I'm acting like I'm hiding something.

From Chapter 12 (Title 2) Read carefully

Sec. 12.102. INSPECTION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES. (a) In this section:

(1) "Residence" means a person's principal or ordinary home or dwelling place.

(2) "Temporary residence" means a place where a person temporarily dwells or seeks shelter. The term does not include a hunting blind. The term does include a:

(A) hunting club or lodge;

(B) clubhouse;

(C) cabin;

(D) tent;

(E) manufactured home used as a hunting club or lodge; and

(F) hotel room, motel room, or room in a boardinghouse used during a hunting trip.

(3) "Wildlife resource" means any animal, bird, reptile, amphibian, fish, or form of aquatic life or any part of an animal, bird, reptile, amphibian, fish, or form of aquatic life the hunting, catching, or possession of which is regulated by this code.

(b) Except as provided by Subsection (d), a game warden or other peace officer commissioned by the department who observes a person engaged in an activity regulated by this code or under the jurisdiction of the commission or reasonably believes that a person is or has been engaged in an activity regulated by this code or under the jurisdiction of the commission may inspect:

(1) any license, permit, tag, or other document issued by the department and required by this code of a person hunting or catching wildlife resources;

(2) any device that may be used to hunt or catch a wildlife resource;

(3) any wildlife resource in the person's possession; and

(4) the contents of any container or receptacle that is commonly used to store or conceal a wildlife resource.

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), a game warden or other peace officer commissioned by the department may inspect any wildlife resource that has been taken by a person and is in plain view of the game warden or other peace officer.

(d) Nothing in this section authorizes a game warden or other peace officer commissioned by the department to conduct a search otherwise authorized by this section:

(1) in a person's residence or temporary residence; or

(2) on a publicly maintained road or way that is:

(A) improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic;

(B) open to the public; and

(C) distinguishable from a shoulder, berm, or other area not intended for vehicular traffic.

Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 558, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.


Sec. 12.103. ENTERING LAND; USE OF INFORMATION OBTAINED BY ENTRY; CIVIL PENALTY. (a) To enforce the game and fish laws of the state and to conduct scientific investigations and research regarding wild game or fish, an authorized employee of the department may enter on any land or water where wild game or fish are known to range or stray. No action may be sustained against an employee of the department to prevent his entering on land or water when acting in his official capacity as described by this subsection.

(b) Except as provided by Subsection (d), the department may use information collected by an employee of the department on privately owned land only for the purposes of scientific investigations and research described in Subsection (a) and only if authorized in writing by the landowner or the landowner's agent. Unless the department first obtains the written consent of the landowner or the landowner's agent, the department may not:

(1) use other incidental information obtained on the land that does not pertain directly to the investigation or research authorized under Subsection (a); or

(2) enter or permit the entry of any information that does not pertain directly to the investigation or research authorized under Subsection (a), into a database:

(A) maintained by the department and available to a person other than a department employee;

(B) maintained by a natural heritage program administered by the department; or

(C) established and maintained by any other person.

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), information collected under this section may only be reported or compiled in a manner that prevents the identification of an individual parcel or specific parcels of private property without the written consent of the landowner or the landowner's agent.

(d) The department may collect and enter data as necessary relating to the occurrence or harvest of natural resources in public land or water. The department may collect and report standardized annual wildlife survey information required by the Pitman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. Section 669 et seq.).

(e) The department is liable to a private landowner for a civil penalty in the amount of $1,000 for a violation of this section involving information collected by an employee of the department on the landowner's property. A landowner may bring suit to collect the penalty in the county in which the land is located or the county in which the landowner resides.

I still don't like it.

Went to the Supreme Court and is basically the same law as ours.

With that said, challenge it. Go right ahead. Knock yourself out. If you think it is so wrong, instead of wasting time complaining here, actually try to do something about it. Contact your state representatives. Fund a defense of a person prosecuted under this law.

Why do people get so cranky? It's an internet forum. I have as much right to my opinion as you do to yours. Sheesh.

You are correct - I get a little defensive on this topic because in today's world the media and some folks would have us believe that most all LEO's ARE bad guys and that simply is not true. My son is a LEO so I have the opportunity to know and be around a number of his fellow LEO's - they are fine people and do one hell of a job protecting the public and treating people with respect even in many cases where the person being detained shows zero respect towards them.

So sorry if I get a little heated and overboard on this subject - again I wish everyone could ride out with these guys to see what they deal with daily - I think most would walk away amazed and grateful - Merry Christmas to all

I wholeheartedly agree. I am grateful for them every day. Merry Christmas!

This GW encounter has stink all over it.

And who insinuated that? I spoke to the situation at hand. Nothing else. Let's stick with that.

What's funny is most of you would give kudos to the GW if he found some illegal hunting or poaching activity by doing exactly as this one did.