New rules for pa.

[SFC B]

You are making my point for me. The public has no claim to personal property. They do for fish and wildlife.

No, I am not. You don't make any point. The owner of the property (whether private chattel or public property-wildlife here) that LE may be concerned with makes NO difference. Fish and wildlife are NOT some magical class of property that should preempt constitutional rights. Every space in America, including YOUR dwelling, COULD have/house/conceal some sort of wildlife that the public has a "claim" to as you say. So what? You either have probable cause and retrieve a warrant or you do not and you stay out.

 

[FranklinME]

Bingo

 

[Bonasababy]

 

[Keep on]

The PA constitution Article 1 Section 8 provides residents of the Commonwealth greater freedoms from unreasonable searches than the US Constitution 4th Amendment.

 

[grizzly63]

When you have large ranch tracts and officers have to witness any wrong doings, how can they get that accomplished without the ability to enter the land to watch. In SD we have had large ranches start issuing ranch tags as I believe they thought that the game animals were theirs to do what they wished with. The great Gov. Noem killed the open fields approach. She was a commercial operator and a landowner so maybe she had some personal interest in this.

 

[IDiot]

Idaho also lost the open fields doctrine recently, I was disappointed. It's pretty easy for a landowner to poach and have an animal in a freezer before a warrant is issued. So what's the solution if not the open fields doctrine, how else do you protect a public resource on private property?

Also 100% of the people that litigate against the open fields doctrine were caught violating game laws. I'm not going to side with a poacher even if their argument might have merit. It's like "yes I was breaking the law but you shouldn't have been able to catch me doing it". What a scumbag perspective.

 

[Wyoming270]

Dont tell me your upset you can no longer be raided by game wardens with no warrant or evidence.

 

[IDiot]

Being checked while out hunting and being raided are not the same thing, not by a long shot. A warrant has always been required to search someone's curtilage (home, outbuildings and surrounding area).

What does upset me is the national trend to let people with great means and influence (large landowners in this case) steal the resources that belong to all of us. An additional consequence of that leads to only having the law enforced on public land. That isn't the American way, we are a nation of rules and laws not of kings.

Do you want to try to address the two points I did actually make?

What is an alternative method to protecting a public resource on private land if not the open fields doctrine? Drone surveillance, no thank you.

Why is this only an issue for people doing illegal activity? For people following the rules it's a non-issue.

 

[Bonasababy]

The PA constitution Article 1 Section 8 provides residents of the Commonwealth greater freedoms from unreasonable searches than the US Constitution 4th Amendment.

Exactly why I said your legislators need to step in. The first step is to get it on your ballots.

 

[SFC B]

Being ok with Open Fields and being opposed to ANY search without warrants is hypocritical, plain and simple. The excuses that "poachers/landowners can do bad thing in secret" can literally be made about ANY location and ANY crime. Just because a public resource may be located there makes zero difference. Public utilities are hooked up to your home, would you be ok with police entering your home whenever they want to make sure you aren't "using it in furtherance of some unspecified and unknown crime"? If you are ok with OF but not with a drone flying over to look from a vantage point that also could be attained through plane or helo flyover (which are long established and in publicly accessible areas) explain THAT? I do not engage in any illegal activity, however, I do NOT want anyone unauthorized by me on my property for any reason. Owning land means being able to decide those things. Landowners are always free authorize blanket access to Game Wardens if they wish. Oh, and the argument that you "won't side with an argument that HAS merit because a dirtbag might do the same is incredibly short sighted and weak........that could literally be said about EVERY criminal statute.

 

[Keep on]

Some here are certainly cheering the distribution of Flock cameras everywhere as well. The intent of the 4th amendment and the PA Constitution was to put a burden of due diligence on law enforcement, not to make it easy and convenient. You see it your way, I'll see it mine.

 

[Wyoming270]

Being checked while out hunting and being raided are not the same thing, not by a long shot. A warrant has always been required to search someone's curtilage (home, outbuildings and surrounding area).

What does upset me is the national trend to let people with great means and influence (large landowners in this case) steal the resources that belong to all of us. An additional consequence of that leads to only having the law enforced on public land. That isn't the American way, we are a nation of rules and laws not of kings.

Do you want to try to address the two points I did actually make?

What is an alternative method to protecting a public resource on private land if not the open fields doctrine? Drone surveillance, no thank you.

Why is this only an issue for people doing illegal activity? For people following the rules it's a non-issue.

Have you ever seen someone with 50million+ in assets get a wildlife violation? It doesnt happen because they pay off the state agencies. They get all the land owner tags they want and sell them. Then when someone with 80n acres hunts the elk that walk onto their property, the people who make hunting an industry get them harassed for legally hunting their own land. Thats how that system worked.

 

[Wyoming270]

I should add, the pay off system is legally encouranged. if you dont believe me, find the wealthiest land owners names in your area, and search their name along with campaign contribution. You might have to go a dozen search result pages back to find it all. Theres a guy who owns a square mile of elk hunting land here, doesnt even live within 1,000 miles of here. assets over 100M. that search on him yields the campaigns of every sheriff candidate in the last 15 years, judges, attorneys, attorney generals, tax assessors, and most of the state legislature. Dont tell me he does that out of the goodness of his heart.

 

[IDiot]

Have you ever seen someone with 50million+ in assets get a wildlife violation? It doesnt happen because they pay off the state agencies. They get all the land owner tags they want and sell them.

Have you already forgotten the guy in Idaho convicted last year, scouting and herding animals with a helicopter, illegally buying and selling landowner tags and having a wounded pronghorn in the back of his truck? He is now buying every acre he can in premium units, immediately after he got hunting privileges revoked and the open fields doctrine is gone, coincidence? I think not. Convicting that guy doesn't sound like a paid off agency to me.

I should add, the pay off system is legally encouranged. if you dont believe me, find the wealthiest land owners names in your area, and search their name along with campaign contribution. You might have to go a dozen search result pages back to find it all. Theres a guy who owns a square mile of elk hunting land here, doesnt even live within 1,000 miles of here. assets over 100M. that search on him yields the campaigns of every sheriff candidate in the last 15 years, judges, attorneys, attorney generals, tax assessors, and most of the state legislature. Dont tell me he does that out of the goodness of his heart.

I agree, this is an enormous problem in our society. Should we just surrender and give up whats right because of it?

 

[Wyoming270]

Why do you think the government is the answer to everything?

It doesnt take going on someones private land with no warrant and no evidence to see a guy shooting game animals from a helicopter.


You probably could not have picked a worse case to support your opinion. The hunting violations karl studer was sited for were on public land. when he was called in, they checked his helicopter flight records and cell phone location records to verify he was there. they used a search warrant for that.

There is an easy solution to big ranches selling land owner tags.

Have you already forgotten the guy in Idaho convicted last year, scouting and herding animals with a helicopter, illegally buying and selling landowner tags and having a wounded pronghorn in the back of his truck? He is now buying every acre he can in premium units, immediately after he got hunting privileges revoked and the open fields doctrine is gone, coincidence? I think not. Convicting that guy doesn't sound like a paid off agency to me.


I agree, this is an enormous problem in our society. Should we just surrender and give up whats right because of it?

 

[IDiot]

Being ok with Open Fields and being opposed to ANY search without warrants is hypocritical, plain and simple. The excuses that "poachers/landowners can do bad thing in secret" can literally be made about ANY location and ANY crime. Just because a public resource may be located there makes zero difference. Public utilities are hooked up to your home, would you be ok with police entering your home whenever they want to make sure you aren't "using it in furtherance of some unspecified and unknown crime"? If you are ok with OF but not with a drone flying over to look from a vantage point that also could be attained through plane or helo flyover (which are long established and in publicly accessible areas) explain THAT? I do not engage in any illegal activity, however, I do NOT want anyone unauthorized by me on my property for any reason. Owning land means being able to decide those things. Landowners are always free authorize blanket access to Game Wardens if they wish. Oh, and the argument that you "won't side with an argument that HAS merit because a dirtbag might do the same is incredibly short sighted and weak........that could literally be said about EVERY criminal statute.

You seem absolutist, that's a fine opinion. My opinion is a bit more nuanced. I wouldn't argue the legality of aerial surveillance by any method, but I'd prefer a warden interacting with people to check for violations.

There is a difference between your home and open land. You can disagree with that, the Supreme Court says there is a difference. You can say that's hypocritical, I'd say the world is complex.

I don't see how any crime anywhere comes into it. This is specifically about theft of a shared resource on land that is not shared. It makes things complicated no doubt. The question remains. How do you protect that public resource?

You're right about not siding with a criminal, I'll admit that outlook is short sighted.

 

[Wyoming270]

Im not for anyone violating hunting regulations. While it seems you are convinced this guy is only buying land to poach, the legal system doesnt work that way.

While i dont advocate anyone illegally taking game, if someone is that serious about having good animals to poach that they are buying thousands of acres of elk habitat, they are probably going to maintain that habitat in a way that benefits the local public land hunting considerably more than a new data center, shooting sports complex, or campground. im not supporting this happening with that statement. But from the perspective of a wildlife management agency that is or is not paid off and is on a tight budget, spending time and effort catching guy who takes a few big ones a year but contributed to overall herd growth probably is not their biggest worry until local people cause enough of a stir to make them worry about their image.

 

[IDiot]

Why do you think the government is the answer to everything?

It doesnt take going on someones private land with no warrant and no evidence to see a guy shooting game animals from a helicopter.


You probably could not have picked a worse case to support your opinion. The hunting violations karl studer was sited for were on public land. when he was called in, they checked his helicopter flight records and cell phone location records to verify he was there. they used a search warrant for that.

There is an easy solution to big ranches selling land owner tags.

I definitely do not think the government is the answer to everything. I think people being decent humans is, but unfortunately that isn't reality.

Yes he was caught doing things on public do you think his behavior will change when he is unobservable on large private parcels? But you missed why I brought that example up. He's a wealthy individual caught violating game laws which you said doesn't happen.

 

[IDiot]

While i dont advocate anyone illegally taking game, if someone is that serious about having good animals to poach that they are buying thousands of acres of elk habitat, they are probably going to maintain that habitat in a way that benefits the local public land hunting considerably more than a new data center, shooting sports complex, or campground. im not supporting this happening with that statement. But from the perspective of a wildlife management agency that is or is not paid off and is on a tight budget, spending time and effort catching guy who takes a few big ones a year but contributed to overall herd growth probably is not their biggest worry until local people cause enough of a stir to make them worry about their image.

Where's the equality and justice in this? We shouldn't abandon principles because they are messy.

 

[Wyoming270]

Where's the equality and justice in this? We shouldn't abandon principles because they are messy.

I never said to abandon principles. i was explaining to you how government inefociency and inequality works.