Musky Mauler
05-25-2014, 05:37 AM
With regard to recent postings re: “Possession Limit,” it seems obvious that the REAL answer to any questions would have to come from an attorney. In other words, what have the courts said regarding cases that have been prosecuted under this law?
For one thing, how in the world would the DNR (or any other enforcement agency) know how many walleyes anybody might have in their freezer?
Can they somehow spy within a person’s domain to determine whether or not certain walleyes which they watched being caught have been cooked and eaten, or have, instead, been stashed in the freezer with numerous other “secreted” fish?
Would they then be able to convince a judge regarding the necessity of obtaining a search warrant to then enter a person’s domain and seize the “evidence?” On what basis would such a warrant be sought and subsequently issued? “Judge, I’ve got nothing more than a hunch that this guy might be hoarding a few too many walleyes.” I doubt that such a warrant would ever be issued on such a basis. (Keeping in mind, of course, of the legal “expectation of privacy” that we’re all entitled to within our own domain.)
As for the law, itself, have the courts ruled on the consideration of “equal application of the law?” In other words, is it not discriminatory to enforce such a “possession restriction” on a person who lives “on the shoreline” (however the law might tend to describe such a location other than in an unusable nebulous fashion) but NOT enforce such a restriction on a person who lives “such-and-such a distance” away from the shoreline?
Is it not considered to be a “restraint of trade” to preclude a “shoreline person” from purchasing 20 walleye fillets at the supermarket to place in the freezer for a subsequent celebratory dinner?
And, how could an enforcement agency differentiate between walleyes purchased in the supermarket as opposed to walleyes caught in adjacent waters? Have they secreted some sort of dye or foreign substance in Flowage walleyes to differentiate them accordingly?
All in all, it sounds to me that there’s a lot of bark but certainly no bite in the so-called “possession limit” that we’ve come to know and love. Sure, its written there for all to see. But, from a practical point-of-view, I don’t think it is realistic at all. It’s probably hoped that folks will be intimidated by the language and will abide by the limit. In such a case, well and good. Although I’m still not sure what detrimental effect would entail if a person were to keep 20 legally-caught or legally-purchased walleye fillets in their freezer for any amount of time that they might choose to do so. Would the sun then decide not rise tomorrow?
This, of course, reflects upon the “reasonableness” of the law. And, if it ain’t reasonable, the courts are certainly apt to rule that the law is unenforceable. But, all of that is for the legal-beagles to contemplate and digest. I only toss it out for a glance at the other side of the coin.
Musky Mauler
For one thing, how in the world would the DNR (or any other enforcement agency) know how many walleyes anybody might have in their freezer?
Can they somehow spy within a person’s domain to determine whether or not certain walleyes which they watched being caught have been cooked and eaten, or have, instead, been stashed in the freezer with numerous other “secreted” fish?
Would they then be able to convince a judge regarding the necessity of obtaining a search warrant to then enter a person’s domain and seize the “evidence?” On what basis would such a warrant be sought and subsequently issued? “Judge, I’ve got nothing more than a hunch that this guy might be hoarding a few too many walleyes.” I doubt that such a warrant would ever be issued on such a basis. (Keeping in mind, of course, of the legal “expectation of privacy” that we’re all entitled to within our own domain.)
As for the law, itself, have the courts ruled on the consideration of “equal application of the law?” In other words, is it not discriminatory to enforce such a “possession restriction” on a person who lives “on the shoreline” (however the law might tend to describe such a location other than in an unusable nebulous fashion) but NOT enforce such a restriction on a person who lives “such-and-such a distance” away from the shoreline?
Is it not considered to be a “restraint of trade” to preclude a “shoreline person” from purchasing 20 walleye fillets at the supermarket to place in the freezer for a subsequent celebratory dinner?
And, how could an enforcement agency differentiate between walleyes purchased in the supermarket as opposed to walleyes caught in adjacent waters? Have they secreted some sort of dye or foreign substance in Flowage walleyes to differentiate them accordingly?
All in all, it sounds to me that there’s a lot of bark but certainly no bite in the so-called “possession limit” that we’ve come to know and love. Sure, its written there for all to see. But, from a practical point-of-view, I don’t think it is realistic at all. It’s probably hoped that folks will be intimidated by the language and will abide by the limit. In such a case, well and good. Although I’m still not sure what detrimental effect would entail if a person were to keep 20 legally-caught or legally-purchased walleye fillets in their freezer for any amount of time that they might choose to do so. Would the sun then decide not rise tomorrow?
This, of course, reflects upon the “reasonableness” of the law. And, if it ain’t reasonable, the courts are certainly apt to rule that the law is unenforceable. But, all of that is for the legal-beagles to contemplate and digest. I only toss it out for a glance at the other side of the coin.
Musky Mauler