[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: DP Collecting On Federal Land Alert
Sorry about your bad experience, which demonstrates that we need to be
extra careful about our collecting activities. I have been concerned
for some time that, depending on which side of the bed a local game
warden got up on, he/she might conclude that one cannot collect baitfish
unless one plans to impale them on a hook afterwards, as capture of
natives for aquarium keeping/breeding is not allowed under the authority
of a fishing license (the folks in VT recently came out with this
bizarre interpretation). Some states allow collecting of baitfish for
personal use only (which generally prohibits sale, barter or trade),
others have a daily limit on baitfish capture, others don't care.
Check: don't assume that it is OK to collect nongame fish under a
fishing license unless you can get a legal determination that it is.
Local game wardens or DNR staff should be consulted on this; try to get
a reply in writing.
Incidents of this nature are why we are in the process of getting
numerous Scientific Collection Permits, which tend to be quite
inexpensive. In addition, they clear up any legal issues which could
potentially cause native fish collectors a lot of grief. All of us
should pay attention to the differences between state law and Federal
law and how things are administered. It is always better to ask up
front than to get a rude surprise later, especially if getting a SCP or
Federal permit would have allowed collecting activities. A bit more
work up front, but the time and effort is a good investment.
BTW, as far as your ticket is concerned, you might want to spend some
time in a local law library. There you should be able to find Federal
laws concerning notification/signage requirements and any cases that set
precedent in these matters. Also, you might find it
useful to file a Freedom of Information Act request with the Federal
land manager for the area and ask for copies of all policies, memos,
etc., that relate to the authority to prohibit fishing in the area where
you were, authority and standards for posting/closing areas to access,
if any other persons were ticketed, what the resolution of their cases
was, and anything else that you can think of that would be helpful. I
do know that FOIA requests usually get people's attention in
governmental offices. In addition, internal documents may be more
helpful than anything in case law, as the internal documents are not
only more specific to the situation at hand, but they can also give you
good leads to follow up on, such as references to various rules,
regulations and legal decisions, etc. After fulfilling your request,
they might be more willing to discuss the matter and reach a mutually
acceptable conclusion.
>From owner-nfc at actwin_com Thu Oct 1 19:44:03 1998
>Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
> by acme.actwin.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA29884;
> Thu, 1 Oct 1998 22:39:44 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: by acme.actwin.com (bulk_mailer v1.5); Thu, 1 Oct 1998
22:39:44 -0400
>Received: (from majordom@localhost)
> by acme.actwin.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) id WAA29864
> for nfc-outgoing; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 22:39:41 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72])
> by acme.actwin.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA29854
> for <nfc at actwin_com>; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 22:39:39 -0400 (EDT)
>From: CEFCHURCH at aol_com
>Received: from CEFCHURCH at aol_com
> by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id PLKUa02083
> for <nfc at actwin_com>; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 22:38:58 +2000 (EDT)
>Message-ID: <3c49beef.36143cc2 at aol_com>
>Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 22:38:58 EDT
>To: nfc at actwin_com
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Subject: DP Collecting On Federal Land Alert
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by acme.actwin.com
id WAA29855
>Sender: owner-nfc at actwin_com
>Reply-To: nfc at actwin_com
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by acme.actwin.com
id WAA29884
>
>Earlier today I stopped by Muscatatuck National Refuge in southern
Indian=
>a to
>throw in some minnow traps and fish at a site I had been many times
befor=
>e.
>Unknown to me, fishing was prohibited in all but a few spots in an area
>covered with streams, wetlands and ponds. The ticket will probably be
ab=
>out
>$125. They mail them. The female enforcement officer was very nice but
s=
>aid
>that the property manager's policy was no exceptions. I was my normal
nic=
>e,
>courteous self. When she walked up, I figured for the third time in my
l=
>ife,
>an enforcement officer just wanted to check my license. BTW, I was in
pla=
>in
>view of a road traveled every several minutes by uniformed site
employees=
> in
>marked vehicle. I was clearly not hiding my activity.
>
>The only signs in an area of 100s of acres was a relatively small one
at =
>each
>of the two entrances. No other signs were posted that I observed. I
wen=
>t
>looking for them after being ticketed. There were also brochures
availab=
>le if
>you stopped at the nature center. I went and spoke to the assistant
prop=
>erty
>manager and she stated that the signs they have are adequate.=20
>
>My first reason for bringing this up is that others besides myself may
no=
>t be
>aware that once on federal land, apparently all the rules change.
There =
>are
>few federal sites in my state, so I was unfamiliar with the new set.
(Al=
>so,
>you may not bring firearms on to the site even if they are unloaded,
brok=
>en
>down and cased in the trunk of your car - in spite of the fact you may
be
>licensed by the state to carry a concealed weapon.)=20
>
>My second reason is that I need a little help. I must respectfully
disag=
>ree
>with the person who stated that there was adequate signs. I am usually
p=
>retty
>observant of what is around me and have been to the site a few dozen
time=
>s. I
>had never noticed the signs nor have any of the people who were with
me.
>Hiking is allowed in most places at that site, but areas that are "off
li=
>mits"
>are very well marked. Everywhere else I go in Indiana that the State
DNR
>prohibits activities, it is clearly marked by signs. (I understand
these=
> are
>two different agencies: state and federal.) =20
>
>For those of you that have more experience visiting federal areas, do
the=
>y
>normally have what a normal person would consider adequate signs?
>
>Any thoughts, comments, or help appreciated. =20
>
>
>
>Chuck Church
>CEFChurch at aol_com
>Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-2067
>USA
>
>><((((=BA>`=B7.=B8=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=B7...=B8><((((=BA>=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=B7.=B8=A0
>.=B7=B4=AF`=B7.. ><((((=BA>`=B7.=B8=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=B7...=B8><((((=BA>
=20
>=B7..
><((((=BA>`=B7.=B8=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=B7...=B8><((((=BA>=B7=B4=AF`=B7=A0
>.=A0.=B7=B4=AF`=B7.. ><((((=BA>
>
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com