they set the laws which establish your guidelines and limits. no different than owning a gun. if you fuck up and ignore those guidelines your fish and your gun or game are no longer yours. but make no mistake they are yours right now. as long as you play nicely.
No different for any other law enforcement personnel They can follow you into your house if they are in hot pursuit but they can't just show up at your door and enter
They actually have more authority and really DO NOT need a warrant. All they need it PC. Same goes for vehicle stops too. All the PC they need is knowing you were fishing/hunting and wanting to check limits, etc. I've been told they have more authority than State Troopers.
But if some dude was getting "more than his share" and didn't really need anymore, would you suggest he cut back? I don't think so. Bros b4 hos. But seriously....from a political standpoint, I see the argument really being around this idea of utility. You say he catches more than he needs and question whether he and his family can really consume that much food. How is that any different than gun control advocates wanting to limit high capacity mags (10+) or assault rifles? Their claim is the same....you don't really need them so why should you have them? As for the wording about who actually owns fish....it clearly states in multiple places, it's the people, further delineated by the people who have governments. The existence of governments does not result in a transference of ownership, merely a standard by which to adjudicate. Now, come on back JHalverson and e-hug it out with tiga.
This is true. They are more likely to shoot you in the head and get away with it than the po po. If challenged, you are gonna lose with the GW.
It should be a game violation if Tiga ran off the only sportsman in this forum......shame on you! Let him catch his damn fish, leave him alone.
It all started with a simple question below: If that can run someone off, dam. But in all honesty I had no strong convictions on this. I even sided with him in part (see frogs). He kept wanting to label me as a government-sided guy. I actually always hoped to swap hunts with him one day. Along the way, I was stoked when I landed lame brain shane and my Bitch Bengal. It's not everyday a man can catch fish like THAT. As to who owns the game, that varies from country to country. There are some many variations before you even get into game Preserves, National Parks, etc. In some countries, if a landowner has so many acres the game on it are his and so is the management of them. Truth be told, in North America wildlife does not belong to individuals. Instead it belongs to everyone with federal, state and provincial governments responsible for managing wildlife on public land. This goes back to when we established our independence after the American Revolution. It was at that time that wildlife was transferred from the King to the new government and thus to the people. Prior to this the centuries-old European model was one in which wildlife was privately owned and hunting was reserved for the upper class. jval threw out the "Public Trust Doctrine. The Public Trust Doctrine is a principle that the government holds title to submerged land under navigable waters in trust for the benefit of the public. The Public Trust Doctrine is most often invoked in connection with access to the seashore bug has actually been used to prevent the private ownership of fish stocks and crustacean beds. jval's battle has been on-going since as far back as 1812. Google the Magna Carter and see what it says about it. In England, nobles wanted fishing wiers, which obstructed free navigation, to be removed from rivers. In the United States, the law differs among the fifty states but in general limits the rights of ocean front property owners to exclude the public below the mean high tide line. So, as you can see, it's really a matter of semantics.
