2 Walleye Bag limit on Flowage for 2011

[The Frog caster]

Hey Bob, The guys were pretty rough on you !! If you mess with a person's livelihood you can expect that. In 1958 we paid $90.00 per week at Art Kreugers resort in Mercer for a family of six. Since 1958 my wages have gone up x10 ......... so in that light, the charge today would be $900.00... correct ?? .......... so a cabin now@ $700.00 per week would be very much in line with todays value on anything ........ agree ? .......... Anyhow, If I had a nickel for every time I stuck my foot in my mouth I'de be "hob-nobbin" with the Rockefellers ! ......... You have your opinions and the right to express them. Best Regards, the "old" frog caster.

[bupa]

Frog-Thanks for your kind words ,an adult response is always welcome.I love the TFF as much as many do. I was only offering what i thought were helpful suggestions NOT criticism.The NASTY response by one so called guide was uncalled for!I wonder if he treats his clients this way-i know i for one will certainly not reccomend him to ANYONE!!!!Dont want to engage in a pissing match but do expect to be treated with some respect.

God Bless All, Bob S.

[Musky Mauler]

This thread doesn’t quite seem about to die. So, I’ll toss in one tidbit more of possible controversy. What the heck, I’ve always felt that controversy is more beneficial than apathy.

During the German occupation of Holland during WW-II, it wasn’t uncommon for the Gestapo to break into your home and search for hidden Jews. But, we don’t hafta put up with that kinda stuff anymore, right? I mean, we live in the good ‘ol U.S. of A. where we’re given Constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure.

So, how is it that some of us seem to be so willing to subscribe to the idea that the DNR (not the Gestapo) can bust into someone’s home in Park Falls and search their freezer for “illegal contraband,” meaning, of course, more than the “possession limit” of walleyes?

Know what? It just ain’t gonna happen!

And, even if it did, how would the DNR know that those frozen walleye fillets aren’t the ones that I bought at the local supermarket in town? Just in case you haven’t looked in recent years, it’s not uncommon at all for the stores to sell frozen Canadian walleyes. At a not-so-long-ago family birthday gathering I purchased some two dozen of these frozen delights from the store’s feezer (how are they able to exceed the “possession limit” themselves?) and stored them in my own freezer. At that time, I had not yet purchased my annual fishing license. So, was I in some kind of “violation” of walleye fishing laws or possession limit laws? Can the DNR presume to limit which kind of foodstuffs I can buy, and in what quantities?

Note that I said a home in Park Falls, and not a cabin on the shores of TFF. Why not make it a home in Milwaukee? I mean, the DNR’s “authority” reaches that far - - right? Let’s get real and figure that this “possession limit” stuff is, by legal necessity, more or less reliant upon “the honor system.” No game warden (or ex Gestapo Agent) is gonna break-in and conduct a search of your abode - - be it a home, cabin, camping trailer or tent.

Comments, anyone?

[Orrsfishing]

Hey Mauler...
A few years ago, without naming names or exact locations, there was a huge sting operation on the Flowage, I believe opening weekend. They did come right into both private home and rented cabin to search for the fish that they already knew were there... someplace. They had agents in the woods, agents in boats around the fishermen and basicly just agents all over the place. They have the authority to search anything they wish if they have a solid reason. I love the question ya raised about the store bought fish and have no idea what to tell you there... Made me laugh tho!! Someone who knows about this will hopefully comment.... I am even pretty sure they have the authority to show up at your home and search that as well, after they bust ya at your rental cabin.
When this all went down a few years ago, it caused a huge stink.. HUGE!! Some major fines were handed out and people were left with a very bitter taste. I hope someone else reading this will be able to recall more and offer more and better insite. There may have even been an article in the Milwaukee paper??

[Mark Benson]

Musky Mauler:

If they think you got some of that contraband and pretty solid lead(s), they will exercise their right to search... As for the store purchased fish, if you removed them from the store bought packaging, that could be an issue...

And the Gestapo/searching for Jewish people and the DNR/searching for walleyes are pretty poor analogies... Last spring there was a large sting on the Chip relating to panfish being over bagged and they may have searched their homes in Milwaukee once it was determined that the overbagging was definitely going on...

Mark

[Hot Runr Guy]

If you don't break the law, you have nothing to worry about. Kinda like why do people hit the brakes, when they are not speeding, just because they see a cop?

HRG

[DonH]

I'm pretty certain of a couple of things regarding the Sting Operation referred to in this string.

First - That the wardens did indeed go onto the cabins to check the amount of fish that were on hand. Remember, since it was opening day, the possession limit wasn't a factor. They could only be fishing for that single day, so they were only allowed 3 fish per man.

Second - That this story was featured in the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel. It was big news and I believe the fines handed out were substantial.

On a side note - Orrsfishing mentions this causing a HUGE stink and the fines leaving a bitter taste. Who had the bitter taste? Not the low lifes breaking the law I hope. The fines should have included loss of fishing privlileges for life as far as I'm concerned. Their intent was to break the law, and catch as many fish as possible. This intent is why the fines were substantial.

On another side note - I was watching a show on the Discovery channel recently. There is a Eskimo village in the artic that is allowed to hunt for a protected species of whale. They are only allowed to fill a specific yearly quota and the Federal government has given them this right (maybe due to a treaty, but I don't know that). Here's the rub. They are forced to hunt as their forefathers did using man made wood canoes and man made wood spears. Makes me wonder why the indians, though exercising 1860 treaty rights to spear walleyes, are allowed to use 21st century technology.

[bunczak]

DonH- That argument about equipment has been made many times. The Chippewa are allowed to use modern equipment because Judge Barbara Crabb said so in her decision. I different judge may have seen it differently (I wish she had).

[Orrsfishing]

HRG, DonH, Bunczak,
Right on and well said!

[Musky Mauler]

Naturally, I'm not familiar with the legal issues involved in the "sting" operation that was mentioned. However, I have a strong suspicion that in the cases at hand, a search warranst were in effect. Especially since it was mentioned that the authorities "knew what was there."

That would be in accordance with the niceties of the law of the land.

But, if you have any friends or acquaintances who are attorneys, go ahead an ask them if a game warden can break into your home and search for possilbe incriminating evidence merely on the authority of his badge. I'm sure the answer you'll receive is "No way!"

The fact that the cases mentioned went to trial and resulted in fines also indicates that it was NOT a warrantless search that occurred. Otherwise, the evidence obtained would have been considered as "fruit of the poison tree," and would not have been admitted.

To obtain a search warrant, assurances have to be made and sworn to a judge that there is sufficient reason to believe that evidence of illegal activity can be obtained as the result of a search. If a "sting" operation took place, it's likely that such a search warrant was obtained on the basis of activity that was observed to have taken place prior to the issuance of the warrant and the subsequent search.

Merely having a fellow fisherman state that "they have the authority to break into your home" does not constitute legal aurhority for such a thing to take place. Such illegal entry would, no doubt, cause the framers of the U.S. Constitution roll over in their graves.

One more thing. In law, the burden of proof rests with the accuser. If I remove the wrapper from my store-bought walleyes, it's not up to me to prove that they ARE store bought - - it's up to the accuser to prove that they AREN'T! The presumption of guilt does NOT rest with the accuser. It never has, and it never will. In our great nation the presumption of INNOCENCE always rests wtih the accused. I don't have to prove that I bought them at the store. The other guy has to prove that I DIDN'T.

I'm sometimes amazed at how our rights can be so miscontrued so often by so many of us. By the way, I'm not advocating that anybody should violate possession laws. I'm only pointing out that this particular law depends greatly upon the honesty and knowledge of fishermen. Great fisherman such as those who I've been thankful of knowing and associating with on TFF and its surrounds for a good number of decades, now. It's certainly been MY pleasure!

[DonH]

Actually a search warrant isn't needed if consent for a search is given, which is usually the case. They have you "dead to rights". They know what you've done and they even know what's in the freezer. If you deny the request, are they going to say "nuts" and leave? No. In that case they will get the warrant you mention and then you're really in trouble. In most cases, the perpetrator realizes he screwed up, has been caught and gives consent to the search.

In my previous post, I never mentioned breaking into a cabin or house. I merely said that the wardens did go into the cabins. Whether they had a warrant, needed a warrant, or didn't need a warrant, I have no idea.

This sting took place because for years certain fishermen were witnessed taking advantage of the resource. They would go fishing and were seen catching their limits. They they headed in, only to return within a short time to again catch their limit. Then they headed in only to return a short time later and they repeated this all day long. I'm sure some fishermen took notice, reported this to the authorities and bingo. The Sting! Good name for a movie

[Mark Benson]

One more thing. In law, the burden of proof rests with the accuser. If I remove the wrapper from my store-bought walleyes, it's not up to me to prove that they ARE store bought - - it's up to the accuser to prove that they AREN'T! The presumption of guilt does NOT rest with the accuser. It never has, and it never will. In our great nation the presumption of INNOCENCE always rests wtih the accused. I don't have to prove that I bought them at the store. The other guy has to prove that I DIDN'T.

By the way, I'm not advocating that anybody should violate possession laws... Great fisherman such as those who I've been thankful of knowing and associating with on TFF and its surrounds for a good number of decades, now. It's certainly been MY pleasure!

To the first item regarding the burden of proof you are absolutely correct!!! Was told that by a buddy who is warden... We know you are not advocating and you are right, there are great people in the Mercer area, be they local or from out of town!!!

Mark

[Musky Mauler]

"In my previous post, I never mentioned breaking into a cabin or house."

Don, just to clarify - - I believe that when a person enters an abode illegally(be it house, cabin, trailer or tent), they will subsequently be charged with "breaking and entering."

That is what prompted my use of the phrase "break into." It doesn't necessarily mean that they break down a door to gain access. It means they have entered the premises illegally.