BigGameHoundsmen.com

I seen on last nights show when then went into a home with a search warrant looking for a guy that was not home. After they found him not to be home they made the other guys living there text the guy on a cell phone. Then took the cell phone from the guy and seen what he sent and then even used this guys cell phone to send text to the guy playing to be him. I dont know the law but would think if you had a search warrant for some guy you couldnt make some other guy use his cell phone and sure couldnt take it from that guy and read anything on it. Then use that guys phone to send messages play as if you we the owner of the phone? It was very nice to see no hound hunters on last nights show. Looked as if all of they guys they did have on there were on dope of some kind sad, sad world we live in now. There was a time where you got your kids into hunting and the outdoors so you didnt have to worrie about drugs and gangs.

i watched the show were the bear hunter was razzed by fins and feathers .and the wife told me i cant watch any show that makes me want yell at the tv

That used to be the case. Now they cant search your vehicle or person except for a pat down search for their safety. They can search your boat or any "receptical". This refers to an icechest or something of that nature. A back back in my opinion would be a grey area. If they could prove you were using it for hunting or fishing then in my opinion a court would probably allow it. A toolbox on your vehicle absolutely not according to the new court ruling.

[quote="livetohunt"] Looked as if all of they guys they did have on there were on dope of some kind sad, sad world we live in now. There was a time where you got your kids into hunting and the outdoors so you didnt have to worrie about drugs and gangs.[/quote="livetohunt"]

thats california for you! LOL

ok well they finally called me back and explained to me that they (ca dfg) have the most athority and "widest or broadest scope" in which they can search out of any law inforcement agency in the state because as he said " hunting is a privlage not your right" there fore it is heavly regulated. they sited ca dfg codes 1006, 20012, 2002, 2000. he also told me that other agencys such as the dea call them and ask them for help , for instance if a known drug trafficer is also a hunter the dea will get the dfg to pull them over so the dea can use the dfg's right to search. he gave me lots of examples of how they handle various situations, but when i started asking questions about hound hunting he said he dident have time to go into all of that. i think all i did was give this guy the oppertunity to brag about his job as superman.....

California Fish and Game does not have the right to violate the constitution. It is that simple.

These aree the codes given that say fish and game have more power than dea. I could only find these 3 on http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html the other one was not on it? None of these really make any sense. And none of them say that they need probable cause or a warrent. But below them is the fourth amendment and the term probable cause.

1006, 20012, 2002, 2000.

2002. It is unlawful to possess any bird, mammal, fish, reptile, or amphibian, or parts thereof, taken in violation of any of the provisions of this code, or of any regulation made under it.
2000. It is unlawful to take any bird, mammal, fish, reptile, or amphibian except as provided in this code or regulations made pursuant thereto. Possession of a bird, mammal, fish, or reptile or parts thereof in or on the fields, forests, or waters of this state, or while returning therefrom with fishing or hunting equipment is prima facie evidence the possessor took the bird, mammal, fish or reptile or parts thereof.
1006. The department may inspect the following: (a) All boats, markets, stores and other buildings, except dwellings, and all receptacles, except the clothing actually worn by a person at the time of inspection, where birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, or amphibia may be stored, placed, or held for sale or storage. (b) All boxes and packages containing birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, or amphibia which are held for transportation by any common carrier.

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment specifically also requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.

Text
“ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Definitions in the United States of America
The best-known definition of probable cause is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime".[2] Another common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".[3] Notable in this definition is a lack of requirement for public position or public authority of the individual making the recognition, allowing for use of the term by citizens and/or the general public.
In the context of warrants, the Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)". "Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. Even hearsay can supply probable cause if it is from a reliable source or supported by other evidence, according to the Aguilar–Spinelli test.

After reading this it seems that fish and game laws are against those of the U.S. laws. So that would mean fish and game is wrong or the constitution is wrong.

(b) All boxes and packages containing birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, or amphibia which are held for transportation by any common carrier.

I wonder if there is a discrepancy between a State Law and the Constitution of the United States of America which would prevail?

Read my post below this about wardens losing their so called authority to stop and search hunters. New case law "People vs. Maikhio" came down in Jan 2010 from teh 4th appelate court of California saying that those codes do not authorizie F&G to stop your vehicle to see if you are hunting and search it. The case is about a warden who watches a guy fishing, catch something and put it in his vehicle. The warden waited until he drove off, stopped him, searched his car, and found an illegally taken spiny lobster. As this is case law I am betting that a large percentage of wardens are UNAWARE of it.

(11) In circumstances involving ambiguous conduct that could be either legal or illegal activity, an officer may not make an investigative stop or detention unless that conduct, in the context of the totality of the circumstances, gives rise to reasonable suspicion that the suspect is involved in criminal activity. Although, based on the totality of the circumstances at the time of the stop, it was possible Maikhio had used the hand-lining method to illegally catch a lobster, the record was devoid of any evidence showing there was a substantial possibility he had done so. Absent that substantial possibility, Fleet in effect acted on a mere hunch or speculation that Maikhio had illegally caught a lobster out of season.
An investigative stop or detention based on a mere hunch of criminal activity is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment

Also the post about if you arnt doing anything wrong dont worry about it. My buddies who were the ones being filmed. One has been chewed out at his favorite coffee shop by a lady who saw the show. The boys have been in several fights at school because of the show. Tell me how we should just sit back and not worry about what F&G say or do.

All right guys i've seen enough i so happened to see this show to and it's amazing how there buddys stick up for them no matter what why if he wasn't trying to sell the gall then did they half to lie about it and keep on beating around the bush and if he wanted it for himself why wasn't he just honest about it and told him and if you want to get treated whith respect then show some respect don't go lieing about stuff good grief thats enough to make any game warden mad would me to and maby some wordens are jerks but i promise you with your atitudes don't ever come crying to me when you get treated like dirt because you probably had it coming so show some respect and live buy the law and and you won't have anything to worry about and i wish you good hunting and happy trails

im gonna have to agree with George on this one , i dont think the dfg can trump the constitution. the problem is they think they can, so what are we susposed to do ?

Bear Hunter I might have miss spoke when I said that if your not doing anything wrong you shouldn't worry. Im sorry that that show has had such a negative impact on everyone involved but I think it is important to remember that in a way we have driven game and fish to this or at least helped them to gain the power they have by the misconduct of some hound hunters. I have hunted bear and I think the warden had every right to be suspicious when people lied and then produced a gall all packaged up real nice. Do I think we should be able to sale or use any part of an animal we harvest? Of course I do but its against the law and I felt the guys on the show were a perfect example of why game and fish gets so out of control. Don't give them the amo they need to shoot us all down!

That is the problem, this is a double edged sword. We want the Game Depts to be successful and help to keep guys from poaching. So the question is should we be expected to give up our rights so they can be more successful at their job?

I don't have much to hide, most of the time I am in the woods I don't even have a gun with me. If a Game Warden has a reason to believe I have done something wrong and I feel letting them search would get us both on our way, I would let them. But it is my decision not theirs, unless they have probable cause.

I don't hunt bear, but if I did the gall bladder would be destroyed. I have no use for it and as others have mentioned, it just feeds the fire against houndsmen.

Cat Crazy Miller,
I agree with you. I treat Game Wardens with truck loads of respect. They have the deck stacked against them as far as obtaining a conviction. If I was a Game Warden, I would get fired or shot in the first year. It has to be frustrating trying to do their job. I do believe some need to work on their attitudes while dealing with the public but there are some good guys that realize most of us are in the woods for pure enjoyment. We don't want to kill everything that moves and just like any other group of people there are good and bad ones on both sides.

Happy hunting to everybody, as with anyone, I will treat Game Wardens how I would want them to treat me. As long as they do the same.

You guys are right. I do not nor have I ever had any use for a gall bladder. I leave them in the woods. In this case only two guys knew the bladder was taken. One of the old timers believes its good for his arthrites. Its not about sticking up for "my buddies" its about the treatment we in Northern Ca are recieving from wardens. Tell me how you would feel being pulled over in town and having your truck searched and your license checked just for having a dog box on the back of your truck. Its happening.

Now how many of you have heard of the "Klein Doctorine" written in 1981 by then CFG Captain Wayne Klein? It details the results of an undercover operation conducted by Fish and Game. It is now used in the training of wardens going through the academy. Here are a few paragraphes. "an important bonus from the Northern Ca operation was learning how houndsmen think, operate, and react to the field warden's presence.60 wildlife officers assigned to the 8 Northern counties in Ca have received training from the undercover team dealing with houndsmen problems". "We learned some disturbing facts in the North. Of utmost concern was the fact that virtually every houndsmen contacted were involved in some degree in the illegal sale of bear gall bladders, feet, claws, or hides. "