BUSTED! "BENNETT SPRING CHECKPOINT:

[fishinwrench]

Anyone that wants to break the rules can do it NOW without worry.  Everyone knows that once a checkpoint is done then there won't be another one for quite awhile.   

By having one they just opened the door.  

[snagged in outlet 3]

I replied with my approval right away to this original post but after reading all of it now I change my mind.  After thinking about it I believe they would have been more successful had they staked out out in the park specifically looking for game violators.  And making a show of the bust.  After all that was the intent of the check point right?  

They probably could have caught more between the spring and the campground than out on the road leaving.

 

[SpoonDog]

If an agent has to rappel down a 200 foot bluff or wade through five miles of stinging nettles to write 23 citations I'm all for it.  If they only have to set up a folding chair, I'm fine with that.  At the end of the day these people are stealing, and you don't let someone waddle out the door with 20 lbs of ribeyes in their trousers because it's just too dumb a crime.  There's no prohibition against going after the low-hanging fruit.  

Maybe agents would've been more successful if they'd been roving around the park, or more visible, or been more public in issuing citations, or made an example out of some folks.  Those are all hypothetical situations, and it's pretty tough to gauge the efficacy of real-world events by comparing them to imagined ones.  Monday morning quarterbacking is easy, and I'm not nearly so interested in whether imagined measures would be more effective, as for all I know they've learned from the experience and they'll apply that knowledge to future efforts.  I'm interested in whether this measure was effective.  I don't think there's much of a question. 

A roving agent is going to have to catch a poacher in the act- and if a poacher knows he's being watched by a roving agent, he probably won't risk creeling that undersize brown.  If an agent rolls up on an angler without a license- maybe it's in his car, or his tent, or his cabin.  Fishing without a license becomes failure to produce a license.  A stringer with a short fish?  It's his brother's, his uncle's, heck- he found it abandoned on the stream and didn't want the fish to go to waste.  In a part of the world where it's tough getting game violations taken seriously, having the evidence in a cooler in the vehicle the poacher owns makes the case a slam-dunk.  Anything less introduces doubt, it pits the word of the agent vs. the suspect, creating a weaker case and hampering enforcement of our game laws.  

[fishinwrench]

Well ok then.  Just please have my crispy chicken sandwich, cold soda, and supersize fries, and all will be fine.  

Knowing that you may have to endure a checkpoint after going fishing needs to be mentioned in all these promotional kid related events also.  No need in leaving that out when "teaching" kids how awesome fishing is, right?

[SpoonDog]

A parent who'd reconsider taking a kid fishing for fear they'd be "inconvenienced" by an agent is only showing it was never really about the kid in the first place.  

Most kids I know understand they're going to be asked to do things they don't want to.  The most well-adjusted I've known take it in stride, eventually realizing dealing with those situations maturely is essential to becoming a grown-up.

 Maybe it'd be an opportunity for kids to school a few adults that there's little value in throwing a tantrum because someone dared to ask something of them, because of an unforeseen inconvenience, or because they otherwise haven't got their way.  

[ozark trout fisher]

I come down on the side of agencies 99% of the time on enforcement issues, to the point where it is almost a running joke...but this kind of a checkpoint system seems seriously problematic to me.

DUI checkpoints are one thing...mostly LEOs are looking for bloodshot eyes and smelling alcohol on the breath, if they smell neither, you're moving on, otherwise, there is your probable cause for a more thorough examination of the situation.

But if they really are looking through everyone's cooler, etc, after its already been loaded into the vehicle, and without a specific cause for suspicion, I don't see how this isn't unreasonable search and seizure and a violation of the 4th amendment.

I know if I got my cooler taken out of the car and searched with no probable cause, I would state my unwillingness to consent to the search, and if it happened anyway, I'd be seeking (very unlikely to come to fruition, admittedly) legal recourse against that officer/agent.

If this is as described, this is entirely unacceptable.

[NoLuck]

This is the agents way of fishing out the bad apples.  I think their time would be better served if they would just put in the hours on the stream looking for violations that pertain to wildlife regulations.  A few days at various random times undercover would yield a lot more violations than a check point.  People just need to see them out there keeping people honest. 

 

I know the manpower isnt isn't what it used to be, but they should still be able to do the field work other than a roadside check.  

[Mark]

WOW JD, I wasn't aware of that!!

[aarchdale@coresleep.com]

Im still amazed that people keep trout to eat!

 

[fishinwrench]

1 hour ago, aarchdale@coresleep.com said:

Im still amazed that people keep trout to eat!

 

They're ok (stockers) but they certainly aren't worth breaking any laws over.  I'd trade a truckload of them for a single pile of frog legs or a crispy chicken sandwich any day.