PDA

View Full Version : Help with Fish and Game law; friend arrested


E Pluribus Unum
04-14-2007, 6:06 PM
At the close of Phaesant season last season a buddy of mine contacted the Department of Fish and Game and inquired as to what would be required to set up a pheasant hunt.

He applied for and received the appropriate permits for having a pheasant hunt. He contacted the DFG and informed them of the hunt. The DFG sent out two wardens that checked everyones tags and plugs and went on their way.

Last week he gets notice there is a warrant for his arrest. He checks with the court and sure enough; the game warden that came out filed a complaint and the DA filed charges for violation of DFG code 2536.


2536. (a) It is unlawful for any person to engage in the business
of guiding or packing, or to act as a guide for any consideration or
compensation whatever, without first having secured a guide license
from the department.

A "guide" is defined as:


2535. As used in this chapter, "guide" means any person who is
engaged in the business of packing or guiding, or who, for
compensation, assists another person in taking or attempting to take
any bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, or reptile or who, for
compensation, assists another person in locating any bird, mammal,
fish, amphibian, or reptile to photograph or view. "Guide" also
includes any person who, for profit, transports other persons, their
equipment, or both to or from a hunting or fishing area.


He does not have money for an attorney and the Public Defender in Taft, Ca is a joke. Anyone have any input on this?

In my reading of it, he was not conducting as a GUIDE... he merely accepted money to pay for the birds that were being hunted on private property. All participants came and went in their own vehicles and hunted on their own accord without being guided.

Fjold
04-14-2007, 6:13 PM
Did he make any profit on the cost of the birds? If the birds cost him $5.00 each did the people doing the hunting pay $5.00 for each bird that they shot?

E Pluribus Unum
04-14-2007, 9:58 PM
Did he make any profit on the cost of the birds? If the birds cost him $5.00 each did the people doing the hunting pay $5.00 for each bird that they shot?

Each person paid $100.00. Each person was guaranteed their limit in pheasant and quail for two days of hunting. A BBQ lunch was also supplied.

This was an organised hunt for friends and family; every partisipant had ties somehow to someone else going.

The land that was used was leased for the hunt. It is completely obvious that after the land lease was paid and the birds were purchased it actually ended up costing $400.00. The $100 "fee" was just to recoup some of the costs involved, they did not even break even.

They are just now filing charges eventhough it happened 8 months ago. This is because the hunt took effect before the guide permit was in effect. Shortly after the hunt, and MONTHS before charges were filed, they aquired the permit.

I was mistaken when I stated they got a permit; They were told by DFG in Fresno that because it was not for profit that it was legal without a permit provided that hunting regulations were upheld.

Rob454
04-15-2007, 11:52 AM
From what I read he was basically hunting without a permit. Even if he got it later it was still hunting without a permit.
Sort of getting car insurance after the accident.

if he took $$ from the participants from what you quoted he became a guide. Its irrelevant wether or not he made a profit on the $$ he obtained.
ROb

Wulf
04-15-2007, 3:16 PM
I think he should quickly point out that the 100 bucks was for the food..... PERIOD!

E Pluribus Unum
04-15-2007, 6:26 PM
From what I read he was basically hunting without a permit. Even if he got it later it was still hunting without a permit.
Sort of getting car insurance after the accident.

if he took $$ from the participants from what you quoted he became a guide. Its irrelevant wether or not he made a profit on the $$ he obtained.
ROb

Everybody had hunting licenses.... as I said... this was not for profit. This hunt was for family and friends and he was recouping some of the expenses. Bad thing is DFG told him under those circumstances no permit was required.

The only reason the local DFG office new they were there is because he called them to let them know.

About 6 months after the hunt the warden called him to "follow up" and asked him a whole lot of questions not knowing he was incriminating himself. They then came out to his house and did a face-to-face interview where he further incriminated himself. The warden told him that they just wanted to talk to him to make sure that next time he does it, its done right. The warden went out and was friendly so he gave the warden full access to all the paperwork, the receipts, and everything. He cooperated fully not knowing that the warden was "investigating a crime".


The whole thing is BS...

Bolt2Bounce
04-15-2007, 7:28 PM
Lawyer....NRA / CRPA... ASAP... B2B

ravenbkp
04-15-2007, 7:36 PM
This borders on entrapment, they knew his plans and were present on his property in a official capacity and supposedly approved of his actions?

All the warden had to do is say dude ya need a guide permit do you have one?

legally maybe he can play you like that but morally and professionally it stinks! If I were his boss he would soon be begging for a transfer.

11Z50
04-15-2007, 7:55 PM
F&G has really degenerated into a bunch of wanna-be cops with attitudes. I used to teach hunter ed for these bungholes but quit after 5+ years because I couldn't stand the *****s.

Incidents of this type seem to be on the rise. Too many on the payroll, packing guns, with nothing to do.

E Pluribus Unum
04-29-2007, 1:45 AM
All charges dismissed without prejudice..... justice prevails... :)

He met with the prosecutor... told him what I said to say.... charges dismissed... :)

G17GUY
04-29-2007, 2:00 AM
All charges dismissed without prejudice..... justice prevails... :)

He met with the prosecutor... told him what I said to say.... charges dismissed... :)


Awsome news, what did you tell him? +1 for the cause.

E Pluribus Unum
04-29-2007, 2:09 AM
Awsome news, what did you tell him? +1 for the cause.

He was charged with "Guiding without a license" which none of the evidence showed that he was guiding.

They could have charged his friend with "Running a gun club without a license" and because he helped... charged him as an accessory... but the DA assured him from the onset that if he beat the current charges, no additional charges would be filed.


I told him to have the judge explain the charges to him and then determine if enough evidence existed to go to trial.... the judge referred those questions to the DA... who then petitioned the court to drop the charges.

rkt88edmo
04-29-2007, 6:41 AM
Great outcome, thanks for circling back to let us know how it wound up.

Paul
04-29-2007, 7:43 AM
Sounds like your friend is guilty - he assisted/guided the hunt without a license. From the definition the guide doesn't need to point out the birds - only assist in the hunt.

Sounds like a fine is in order.

tenpercentfirearms
04-29-2007, 8:19 AM
LOL. Everyone knows that guy! Yeah he told us on Thursday that they dismissed everything.

The funny thing about this guy is you would think most of his stories are BS, but he has pictures to prove it. I will never forget the day he rolls up in his 93 green Ford Mustang and says, hey come check this out. The crazy MF has a huge pig in the trunk of his freaking car! I would have never believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes.

E Pluribus Unum
04-29-2007, 10:20 AM
Sounds like your friend is guilty - he assisted/guided the hunt without a license. From the definition the guide doesn't need to point out the birds - only assist in the hunt.

Sounds like a fine is in order.

You are mistaken.... guiding means assisting in directing hunters to the game.

They never guided... they bought birds, planted them, and charged people to allow them to hunt them. This is not guiding.

My friend did not even do that.... my friend "helped" which is to say he was there to make sure no one trespassed on land that was not leased and to assist with the BBQ and what not. He had nothing to do with the birds, or the money.

E Pluribus Unum
04-29-2007, 10:25 AM
LOL. Everyone knows that guy! Yeah he told us on Thursday that they dismissed everything.

The funny thing about this guy is you would think most of his stories are BS, but he has pictures to prove it. I will never forget the day he rolls up in his 93 green Ford Mustang and says, hey come check this out. The crazy MF has a huge pig in the trunk of his freaking car! I would have never believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes.

You must be talking about Earnie.... I only know him vaguely.... his good friend is Bob.... Bob is my friend of many years... a farmer from Taft. Earnie was guilty, no doubt about it. His biggest crime was incriminating himself because he trusted the game wardens. Their story to him was "We know you did this wrong this time, thats ok, its your first time; we just want to HELP you so that you get it right next time". He believed them and ended up in court.

Regardless charges were dismissed for him as well... he got lucky.

My friend, Bob, was only ever guilty of association.

Since then Earnie has gotten his guide license and is all set to do it this year.... legally.... :)

SemiAutoSam
04-29-2007, 10:30 AM
Hmmmmmm Hunting on Private property right?

How would the DFG have any jurisdiction on private property ?

for any kind of enforcement ?

E Pluribus Unum
04-29-2007, 10:42 AM
Hmmmmmm Hunting on Private property right?

How would the DFG have any jurisdiction on private property ?

for any kind of enforcement ?

DFG has jurisdiction over ALL game in California... on private property or not. If they have probable cause that game is being taken they can enter private property to investigate.

If you have a hook in water, you need a fishing license; even if you bought and planted the fish in your own private pond.

If you are hunting game on your own property you are still subject to hunting laws.

SemiAutoSam
04-29-2007, 10:47 AM
Ill call BS on this one.

According to Title 42 US Code unless the agency has a vested interest they have no say so in the area of events that happen on private property

DFG has jurisdiction over ALL game in California... on private property or not. If they have probable cause that game is being taken they can enter private property to investigate.

If you have a hook in water, you need a fishing license; even if you bought and planted the fish in your own private pond.

If you are hunting game on your own property you are still subject to hunting laws.

E Pluribus Unum
04-29-2007, 10:48 AM
Ill call BS on this one.

According to Title 42 US Code unless the agency has a vested interest they have no say so in the area of events that happen on private property

Call BS all you want to.... you are wrong sir.... :)

If you doubt me, call the DFG.

There are entire deer zones that are 100% private property; why would they have a private property deer zone if private property were exempt from hunting laws?

SemiAutoSam
04-29-2007, 10:57 AM
DFG will only tell you what they think is law.

Why would you accept the DFG's opinion of law when you don't accept the DOJ's opinion of law.



That's just about the same thing as asking the DOJ for their opinion on OLL'S.

you don't ask the Fox for his thoughts on how to properly guard the chickens.

http://www.landrights.com/42usc1982_Law.htm

CITE-
42 USC Sec. 1982 01/16/96

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 21 - CIVIL RIGHTS
SUBCHAPTER I - GENERALLY

-HEAD-
Sec. 1982. Property rights of citizens

-STATUTE-
All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in
every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof
to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and
personal property.

E Pluribus Unum
04-29-2007, 10:58 AM
P.S.

I know this to be true because of our farming. We had cotton tail rabbits demolishing our cotton. We were shooting them on the spot in our fields to stop the damage. A game warden heard the shots and came onto our property to investigate and saw us. We were unlicensed at the time and the ONLY thing that saved us was that we were in the crop fields. He COULD have written us a ticket for hunting without a license, confiscated our firearms, and written us a ticket for hunting cotton tail out of season.

We had to apply for a deprevation permit... that permit gave us a right to shoot cotton tail year round, completely exempt from all hunting regulations.

SemiAutoSam
04-29-2007, 11:01 AM
I guess I would have handled that a little different.

I would have called the sheriff and asked him to remove the trespasser.

as he has no right to be on private property any more than any private citizen does.

P.S.

I know this to be true because of our farming. We had cotton tail rabbits demolishing our cotton. We were shooting them on the spot in our fields to stop the damage. A game warden heard the shots and came onto our property to investigate and saw us. We were unlicensed at the time and the ONLY thing that saved us was that we were in the crop fields. He COULD have written us a ticket for hunting without a license, confiscated our firearms, and written us a ticket for hunting cotton tail out of season.

We had to apply for a deprevation permit... that permit gave us a right to shoot cotton tail year round, completely exempt from all hunting regulations.

E Pluribus Unum
04-29-2007, 11:03 AM
Your post makes no sense..... it is saying that other races have the same land rights as white people. Nowhere does it say that one can hunt on private property without a license.


Sam... I am so sure of this I would bet $10,000 on it. When taking game anywhere in California one must have a hunting license and abide by all hunting regulations.... private property or not.




DFG will only tell you what they think is law.

Why would you accept the DFG's opinion of law when you don't accept the DOJ's opinion of law.



That's just about the same thing as asking the DOJ for their opinion on OLL'S.

you don't ask the Fox for his thoughts on how to properly guard the chickens.

http://www.landrights.com/42usc1982_Law.htm

CITE-
42 USC Sec. 1982 01/16/96

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 21 - CIVIL RIGHTS
SUBCHAPTER I - GENERALLY

-HEAD-
Sec. 1982. Property rights of citizens

-STATUTE-
All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in
every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof
to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and
personal property.

E Pluribus Unum
04-29-2007, 11:04 AM
I guess I would have handled that a little different.

I would have called the sheriff and asked him to remove the trespasser.

as he has no right to be on private property any more than any private citizen does.

You'd have gone to jail... plain and simple... search the fish and game code... I am sure you will find it in there... I just don't feel like doing it to prove a point.

SemiAutoSam
04-29-2007, 11:06 AM
My post is based in law. Title 42 section 1983 look it up if you care to.

the text is how its written I didn't make it up.

The constitution also speaks of white men as thats how it was written.

At the time the laws were written people of color weren't seen as 1st class citizens and at times weren't seen as citizens at all.



Your post makes no sense..... it is saying that other races have the same land rights as white people. Nowhere does it say that one can hunt on private property without a license.


Sam... I am so sure of this I would bet $10,000 on it. When taking game anywhere in California one must have a hunting license and abide by all hunting regulations.... private property or not.

SemiAutoSam
04-29-2007, 11:06 AM
Sorry but FG Code does not trump US Code. In fact its inferior to US Code.


You'd have gone to jail... plain and simple... search the fish and game code... I am sure you will find it in there... I just don't feel like doing it to prove a point.

E Pluribus Unum
04-29-2007, 11:23 AM
My post is based in law. Title 42 section 1983 look it up if you care to.

the text is how its written I didn't make it up.

The constitution also speaks of white men as thats how it was written.

At the time the laws were written people of color weren't seen as 1st class citizens and at times weren't seen as citizens at all.

I realize all that.... what did not make sense is it says nothing about hunting...

Fish and Game code


3007. Every person who takes any bird or mammal shall procure a
license or permit therefor.


There is no exemption for private property.

just4fun63
04-29-2007, 11:36 AM
you both have valid arguments .......the problem is the f&g Nazis will uphold their code and you will need lots of $$$$$$$$$ to fight them. They know you don't have lots of $$$$$$$ so they win by default

E Pluribus Unum
04-29-2007, 11:40 AM
you both have valid arguments .......the problem is the f&g Nazis will uphold their code and you will need lots of $$$$$$$$$ to fight them. They know you don't have lots of $$$$$$$ so they win by default

He made no point at all....

He quoted a law that says basically.... we all have the right to own things.

Owning something does not give one supreme domain over it. There are still restrictions on what one may do with his things.

Hunter
04-29-2007, 11:51 AM
On certain points you are both correct.

First E Pluribus Unum is correct on the license issue.

It is indeed the law that anyone hunting in this state must have in their immediate possesion a valid hunting license and any necessary permits/tags to take/persue animals. This applies too all lands, including private. Now there are exceptions, but they are very rare and not the point here.

Second Sam is more correct on entering private lands issue.

The actual law states :

857. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the status of
a person as an employee, agent, or licensee of the department does
not confer upon that person a special right or privilege to knowingly
enter private land without either the consent of the owner or a
search warrant, an inspection warrant.

(b) (1) Subdivision (a) does not apply to employees, agents, or
licensees of the department in the event of an emergency. For
purposes of this section, "emergency" means a sudden, unexpected
occurrence, involving a clear and imminent danger demanding immediate
action to prevent or mitigate loss of, or damage to, wildlife,
wildlife resources, or wildlife habitat.
(2) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a sworn peace officer
authorized pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 830.2 of the Penal
Code or, if necessary for law enforcement purposes, to other
departmental personnel accompanying a sworn peace officer.
Subdivision (a) shall not be construed to define or alter any
authority conferred on those peace officers by any other law or court
decision.
(3) Subdivision (a) does not apply to, or interfere with, the
authority of employees or licensees to enter and inspect land in
conformance with Section 4604 of the Public Resources Code.
This section is not intended to expand or constrain the authority,
if any, of employees, agents, or licensees of the department to
enter private land to conduct inspections pursuant to Section 7702 of
this code or Section 8670.5, 8670.7, or 8670.10 of the Government
Code.


Bottomline is that the FG Warden can enter private lands (without consent) only with a LEO or only after witnessing an "emergency" taking place (such as poaching). Otherwise they can only sit at the border of the property and try to catch you coming out.

SemiAutoSam
04-29-2007, 11:53 AM
Thanks Hunter you explained it alot better than I guess I did.

just4fun63
04-29-2007, 11:57 AM
Last I checked F&G wardens are LEO. their biologists are not. What I was trying to suggest was sometimes there laws in place that violate your rights. They enforce them by depending on the fact that you cannot afford to prove them wrong. Did I say that right?

SemiAutoSam
04-29-2007, 11:58 AM
YES.

Last I checked F&G wardens are LEO. their biologists are not. What I was trying to suggest was sometimes there laws in place that violate your rights. They enforce them by depending on the fact that you cannot afford to prove them wrong. Did I say that right?

E Pluribus Unum
04-29-2007, 12:06 PM
Bottomline is that the FG Warden can enter private lands (without consent) only with a LEO or only after witnessing an "emergency" taking place (such as poaching). Otherwise they can only sit at the border of the property and try to catch you coming out.

He could go down any public easment... I.E... the farm roads around the crops....

Would gun fire not be probable cause that hunting is occuring? Would it not then be in their power to investigate to make sure they are licensed?

P.S.
I guess part of the problem was that we were all parked ON the public easment... so he had a right to go down that easement and check our equipment. It sounds as if we had been in the middle of the field.. he could not have done so.

Hunter
04-29-2007, 12:07 PM
Last I checked F&G wardens are LEO.....


Yes, you are correct in that Wardens are LEO under the same laws as say a CHP officer (see PC below). But the key to entering private lands is also the same for them (FG) as it would be for a CHP officer. They need PC to go beyond areas normally open to public access (aka driveways, ect...). Just like a LEO cannot come into your house without your consent; a warrant; PC ; or an emergency.



830.2. The following persons are peace officers whose authority
extends to any place in the state:
(a) Any member of the Department of the California Highway Patrol
including those members designated under subdivision (a) of Section
2250.1 of the Vehicle Code, provided that the primary duty of the
peace officer is the enforcement of any law relating to the use or
operation of vehicles upon the highways, or laws pertaining to the
provision of police services for the protection of state officers,
state properties, and the occupants of state properties, or both, as
set forth in the Vehicle Code and Government Code.
...............{snip}..............
(e) Employees of the Department of Fish and Game designated by the
director, provided that the primary duty of those peace officers
shall be the enforcement of the law as set forth in Section 856 of
the Fish and Game Code.

E Pluribus Unum
04-29-2007, 12:08 PM
Thanks Hunter you explained it alot better than I guess I did.

He quoted the law that applies... you quoted a law that guarantees our rights to own things... :)


Its moot really.... the fact is we need hunting licenses to hunt game... private property or not. Wether they had PC to enter the private property is just a side issue...

I was right... neener neener neener <makes fart noise>

Hunter
04-29-2007, 12:15 PM
He could go down any public easment... I.E... the farm roads around the crops....

Would gun fire not be probable cause that hunting is occuring? Would it not then be in their power to investigate to make sure they are licensed?

Gun fire alone is not enough if done in an area were gun fire is normally expected. We had a case were the duck club next to ours was consistently shooting well after quiting time (not 5-10 minutes, but 45 mins). The warden was on our property and tried like hell to witness the actual shooter in action while shooting ducks. He wasn't able too and this went on for weeks. He said that was the only way he could enter the property (seeing an emergency) since the Owners had stated clearly no unauthorized access with signs on the driveway. Most clubs give card blanc to the Wardens to come and go, but this one didnot and their hands were tied because of it. There is no law against discharging firearms afterdark/shooting times ended. Also they could say they were hunting racoons, since that is legal at night or just shooting rice rats....lots of exceptions to make determining a PC difficult without seeing it.

Rascal
04-29-2007, 12:43 PM
If you have a hook in water, you need a fishing license; even if you bought and planted the fish in your own private pond.



Hmmm There is this place just south of Gilroy, that you can go fishing and you don't have to have a fishing license. I think you do have to pay to go fishing, but you don't have to have license. How do they get away with that? These are private stocked ponds.

E Pluribus Unum
04-29-2007, 12:46 PM
Hmmm There is this place just south of Gilroy, that you can go fishing and you don't have to have a fishing license. I think you do have to pay to go fishing, but you don't have to have license. How do they get away with that? These are private stocked ponds.

In my research I found that I was wrong....

If there is no possible way for wild fish to get into the pond... and the pond is on private property... and the fish are planted by a private property... fishing without a license is legal.

The key is that there be no possibility of external fish getting into the pond.

Rascal
04-29-2007, 12:52 PM
Thanks for enlightening me. So there are exceptions to the law?

artherd
04-30-2007, 3:24 AM
Yes, I own a (small) pond (with a dam, fed by artesian spring.) that I stocked. I enquired with a friend of mine (father works for DFG) and fishing from that pond does not require a license.

In general however, fishing does require a license.