DNR to hunters: Hand over your guns on demand

Lakeland Times ^ | 9 January, 2009 | Richard Moore

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you. If I blew it, I apologize.

[SJackson]

Well, I was going to go to Wisconson at the invitation of a friend for a hunt. I’ll be politely declining now based on this Nazi attitude of their DNR officers.

You'll note the article, aside from some rather dubious claims, makes zero accusations against Wisconsin wardens. I'd ignore it.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks Beagle8U. That is an interesting premise. Perhaps I’m not quite up to speed, but it would seem to me that the time to go postal, would be when you observe someone breaking the law. Setting up artificial limits seems overly zealous. A hunter could easily have the gun loaded to the max, and never go over the three shot limit. Is the state of the opinion that people can’t count to three, or won’t count to three?

What if three hunters are shooting in a group. If each shoots three times, that’s nine shots, larger groups even more...

Either you trust people or you don’t. If you don’t, you take their guns. If you can’t trust a guy on the three shot rule, how can you trust him with a weapon in the first place?

[SJackson]

IMO, granting ownership of wild animals on personal property to the state, is just wrong. If you have a 15,000 acre property, you are going to have plenty of wild animals on it. They are yours.

I understand your point, but that's not the law, they belong to the people of the State of Wisconsin. If you want them to be your's, you can get a permit to operate a game farm, lot's of people do, even more get fish farm licenses. And although there are other regulations, the regular hunting regulations don't apply. And if "your" animals "wander" off your property, you've got a whole different set of potential problems.

I do think wildlife management is important, and while I'd love to have exemptions for game animals as a landowner, as exist for pests, I recognize that a lack of regulation is probably not in the best interest of either wildlife managment hunting.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for your comments. I understand where you are coming from, even if I don’t necessarily agree with you. If we were to dig deeper, I might agree with you more than it appears on the surface. Take care.

[marktwain]

“Bad advice, wardens can enter private property to enforce the game laws at will....Not legally. The law states that they must still have a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity to go onto private property.”

“I'll defer to marktwain on this one, but I believe you're mistaken. Under state law a warden can enter property to check things like license, proper ammunition, or the tagging of a deer. He doesn't have to suspect wrongdoing.”

---

As I recall, the theory goes something like this: the game belongs to the state, not the landowner, so the game wardens can enforce game laws on private land. However, they are not full “peace officers” on private land, just regulatory enforcers, kind of like meter maids. They could only write tickets for civil violations to start.

But the penalties for game laws have increased, so we have a problem that they are acting more as police than regulators.

The mere fact that they have to have a connection with the game and fish laws (and now the snowmobile and 4-wheeler laws) means that they are limited as to when they can go on private property. But, because they are enforcing regulations instead of “crimes” they do not need probable cause that a crime has been committed.

I do not think that we were taught that you needed a “reasonable suspicion of illegal activity”, as game wardens could check for fishing licenses, say, on private land.

In practice, Wisconsin has enough public land that the wardens avoided much of the issue by staying off of private land unless there was a clear reason to check hunters or fishermen that they could see engaging in hunting or fishing on the private land.

[OKSooner]

Dude, no apology necessary. I knew you’d understand.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks. Take care...

[marktwain]

“In the real world this is a non issue, and extrapolating it into the DNR as a gun confiscation agency is a real stretch.”

---

I think I disagree with you a little. In the real world, I rarely would see wardens ordering hunters to hand over their guns. But the point of the article seems to me that we do not want to create an atmosphere where people carrying guns are assumed to be illegal, where the carrying of guns is an act that *of itself* causes police or wardens to take action against the person who is carrying. This is just contrary to the law and the Constitution of the state of Wisconsin, as the article pointed out.

[Beagle8U]

I know what you mean about the trust issue, but hunters themselves requested to rule years ago to police their ranks.

You must think back to the days of market hunting, punt guns holding several pounds of shot, shotguns larger than 10 ga, and the practice of taking several shotguns with 5-6 rounds loaded, for each hunter in a party, to understand what their thinking was.

It was quite a break in tradition to go to the current 3 shot rule, and plugging the gun to limit it was a way to remind everyone...IMHO.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you for your additional comments. I appreciate it.

[Beagle8U]

“but then the State wanted to put their own indoctrination in, so they created their own course and set of teaching credentials.”

Today I think that most of the states that require, or offer, hunter safety classes use the books and manuals that are produced by the mentioned International group.

I would be willing to bet that even the NRA uses their materials in the classes they put on if they are state sanctioned to provide hunter safety certificates in that state.

It is much cheaper that way for the states, as opposed to each state producing their own.

What needs to happen is to make sure that nothing gets into those manuals that would violate the US Constitution, or just start using American manuals only.

[DariusBane]

Hey good o hear from elkfersupper again!

[Beagle8U]

As an instructor of many years, and as such, a defacto employee of the DNR in my state, I'll offer my opinion on many of the issues presented in this thread.

Does a conservation officer have the legal right to enter private property to check licenses and possible violations?

Yes and No.

Just like any police officer, they can enter private property to investigate crimes and violations of law, IF they have just, probable cause, that a violation or crime, has been, or is likely to be, committed.

Just wander around private property to check things out?

Not just no, but hell no! No more than the county sheriff could park his fat ass in a lawn chair at your next backyard BBQ, just to make sure you commit no crimes.

Just as a cop needs a reason to stop your car, they need probable cause to check you or your property.

Is a conservation officer empowered the same as other police officers?

In most states Yes, they have the same powers as the state police. Not every DNR employee is classified as a conservation officer however.

[rabidralph]

Why is it that everytime I see “DNR” in the headline, the story is coming from Wisconsin?

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate them. To make it clear, that is pretty much what I thought. I just don’t like the idea of someone entering my property even for cause without my consent. If it’s a felony, I would reduce my objection, but I would want notification the moment it took place.

[SJackson]

My impression is that probable cause isn't necessary relative to game law violaions, but we've probably beaten this one to death.

My only real point was that the article was misrepresenting the intent and practice of the DNR, and that these kinds of "they're taking my guns away"/ "don't cooperate with the warden" panic driven articles don't accomplish a thing. In fact I think they hurt gunowners and hunters when they're not based on verifiable fact.

[Lurker]

I was in error in my response to you. For that you have my apologies.

Best,

L

[Beagle8U]

“My impression is that probable cause isn't necessary relative to game law violations, but we've probably beaten this one to death.”

We will have to disagree on that, but I agree we have beat this one to death.

Somebody better gut and tag that dead horse, before we all get a ticket...lol.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

I'll defer to marktwain on this one,

No offense to marktwain intended, but what the DNR taught it's employees thirty years ago or even thirty minutes ago isn't evidence in this discussion, it is the underlying issue.

but I believe you're mistaken ("The law states that they must still have a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity to go onto private property").

I think that you and many posters on this thread may be confused about the difference between "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion."

Under state law a warden can enter property to check things like license, proper ammunition, or the tagging of a deer. He doesn't have to suspect wrongdoing.

Although the hurdle may be quite low in practice, there exists a legal threshold for all regulatory and law enforcement personnel to enter private property. Remember, the real issue here is that an official at the DNR is overstating their authority. It is not the responsibility of law enforcement or anyone else to clarify what our rights are in this sort of situation. A right not asserted is by default surrendered.

If I'm right, while his teachings may not be "illegal", by refusing to cooperate with a request to see a license, or display proper ammunition, the ill advised student will be breaking the law, and will pay an unnecessary price.

His teachings were not illegal and those who follow them aren't breaking any laws. If anyone doesn't think that our constitutional and statutory rights while on private property are worth asserting, they can just eliminate the ambiguity and invite the DNR onto their property. They should also be sure to give their consent to a vehicle search whenever they are pulled over in a traffic stop. They might as well also invite the DNR into their home to inspect for any possible law breaking there. I'm sure their "cooperation" will go a long way toward them not having to "pay an unnecessary price" for their rights.

As to calling the Sheriff to have the warden arrested for tresspass, not a good idea, imo.

Even when challenged the DNR has been unable to cite any legal justification for their position. I'm sure that filing a trespass report against anyone would not seem to be a good idea to someone who was so willing to forfeit their rights and property to such a nebulous authority.