TWRA ruled against - AGAIN!

[MickThompson]

There was some corn in front of some cameras. I take pictures sometimes when I am not hunting there. To see if anything is going through there. During those times I am typically hunting Catoosa. That's it. I was demonstrably not hunting and was on the property thinking I was about to catch a thief. So we went to court and I provided evidence of that and other supporting stuff and we agreed to disagree and that was it. I had even previously written a letter to the sheriff's office about the thief and stolen cameras and showed that in court and a picture of a very unique vehicle parked in a unique position to gain hidden entry to the property only an hour before I went in to check on the property. But I still remember what had happened originally with that notification to the sheriffs department. When I called the sheriff's office about receiving no reply to my letter they said I should go and talk directly to a deputy. So I did. It was "informational". I showed the deputy pictures of the trespasser/thief's car with license plate and a picture of the thief in a unique jacket and asked the deputy if he could talk with the trespasser. I remember clearly what he said. First he asked if the cameras cost over $500. They only cost $350/$400. Then he said "Well, we are not in the business of talking to people. We are in the business of putting people in jail." He explained that there was not much he would be doing.

I actually felt bad for him. He was on the phone when I originally came to his desk. While I was sitting there, he was obviously talking with the lawyer of someone accused of repeated thefts. He said "You know Charlie (?) (the thief's lawyer), you're just going to get him out of jail and he's just going to go back to stealing things again." Sad but true.

This thread to me is about government overreach based on marginal/debatable evidence which has become all too common. Very dangerously so. This is what happened when (after issuing new statements about what THEY think is being in the gun business) the ATF recently barged into a known gun collector's home in the early hours of the morning unannounced SWAT Team style and shot him mortally in the head in front of his wife. After cutting the power to the house and placing tape across their door bell camera. And making sure they were not using their own required body cams. Jim Jordan eventually asked the ATF director to apologize to the dead man's widow, who was in attendance which he sort of did.

Did you have a weapon legal for the season that was open?

 

[BigJohnJTP]

No. I was there to catch the trespasser. The question is why are these LEO's creeping into private property, on fishing expeditions. Whether it's twra, or the atf, without first confronting the person potentially doing something wrong? and talking with them. The emphasis should be on pointing out a potential problem and resolving it by communicating with the public. I think the TWRA 's raid could have resulted in someone getting shot just like the ATF's raid did. Communicating with the public first should be the course of action. Not catching and figuring out the details later.

Well this has been an interesting thread and a lot of us have had our say but we ourselves probably can't resolve this. Maybe the legislatures' guidance to TWRA can. I'm going back to issues on tracking down, and killing furry things to eat.

 

[Headhunter]

I think you may have just answered your own question.

First, the wildlife is owned by the general "public", as it belongs to all of us, NOT the owners of any private property, NOT even the public land WMAs. Wildlife belongs to the People, not the owners of the land such wildlife walks or flies across.

Yes, it would be very different if we were talking about farm animals, but we're talking about free-ranging wildlife.

Secondly, 86% of TN's land mass is privately owned.
Only 14% of TN's land is "public", i.e. owned by the State or by the federal government.

Bottom line is that most of the public resource of "wildlife", at any given movement, may be found on private property.

Never mind that this whole saga has involved multiple "extreme illegal situations"?

Well since only 14 percent is public, why can't they even remotely police it?

I don't care who owns the wildlife, it still does not give them the right to stomp on the constitution, even if they are poachers, no different than the police. Trust me, some at the TWRA are no different that the government, they will make an innocent person guilty. Before you say so, I have never really had an issue with a warden, for sure never a ticket. I do hear of many, way more than most would believe, who kill a deer in other states and bring them home to process. Has happened for a long time and still happens. We process our own deer, so it is not a big deal for us when we kill a deer in another state, we process them there. But I can guarantee you many do not pay attention to that law and no I am not turning them in. Actually, until the TWRA starts policing the illegal immigrant population, I am for the most part not saying anything about any illegal activity I see and most anyone I know feels the same way.

 

[TheLBLman]

Government agents have been known to lie and make up stuff before.

This is very true.
Look what "government agents" have been doing to Trump.

Despite some legitimate complaints against TWRA, I have found most TWRA people to be honorable and just trying to help out the ethical law-abiding sportsmen and conservationists.

Not that it would have made any difference had they initially known who I was, over the decades, I have had many, many "in the field" encounters with TWRA officers. With but one exception, all have treated me with respect, and given men the benefit of their doubts as to what I may have been doing.

Regarding that one exception, I credit my disagreement with the officer being very new to his role. Just saying, we all make mistakes, we were all once new to a role. This one wrote me a citation, when most would have simply accepted my reasonable explanation, and actually agreed with me. So it's an understatement when I say I was shocked to have been given that citation. But I saw my beef with that particular officer, not with the entire TWRA.

Again, I have had countless encounters with TWRA officers, and have seen first-hand what a challenging "damned if they do, damned if they don't" job they have.

Much of what we find fault is actually more a reflection of the politicians controlling the courts & the fines, coupled with there typically only being 1 or 2 officers per county, working both woods & waters. There is simply no way 1 or 2 county officers can address all our desires, much less our complaints.

For several years running, I had somewhat a public feud with a particular well-known TWRA biologist. We had a difference in opinion. But I know I never hated the man, just disagreed with some of his thoughts, interpretations, and believe he felt likewise about me. Reality was likely more somewhere in between each of our extreme but opposite thoughts at the time.

I will say this:
If TWRA were the vindictive entity some of you seem to think, they would have long ago locked me up and thrown away the key, never mind I've never purposefully violated a game & fish law. Fortunately, most of the TWRA guys (& gals) are just like most of us, i.e. good people.

 

[TheLBLman]

Government agents have been known to lie and make up stuff before.

Criminals, poachers and other game/fish-law violators lie & make up stuff even more?

We don't live in a perfect world.
Some of the ideas on this thread would make matters worse, not better.

It's a shame when some choose to bash the entire TWRA more than they bash serial poachers?

It's similar to bashing the TN Sherriff departments & the police because crime is so bad.
The root cause of most our problems goes back to our TN legislatures & mayors more than anything TWRA or law-enforcement related?

And, Headhunter, I'm not talking about you, as I hear you bashing the poachers, while others seem to be making excuses for them.

Too many people (nationwide) are siding with criminals instead of those trying to stop their crimes?
"Defund the Police"? "Defund the TWRA"?

Someone is trying to make excuses for blatant government overreach.

Not at all.
Few people on this forum have attacked true government overreach as much as have I.

I've stated the TWRA officer who placed the cell cam made a mistake.
The issues & the law wasn't clear, that's been elaborated on, made clearer now.

Just don't want to see the baby thrown out with the dirty bathwater,
which is exactly what serial poachers want to happen.

Carry on.

 

[Headhunter]

l have never had a bad experience with a twra officer. All have been good.

With that said, they are not judge and jury. I do not know what the legal opinion is on the case that started all this as far as whether they had probable cause to be "spying" on the people or place cameras without their knowledge. IMO the law agencies involved had probable cause, but to show up at the landowners house and arrest them for stealing cameras was WRONG! Many will say don't let one bad apple spoil all of them, but in this case it does. They destroyed much trust and even the people had been previously convicted of breaking game laws, the law agencies were wrong when they arrested them for stealing cameras that were placed on their land without their knowledge. Unbelievable. And then for the TWRA to say if a landowner does not want the TWRA on their property, then they should desist hunting, tells me ALL I need to know. No law enforcement agency should be able to just go anywhere they want without at least probable cause. They are no different than a common trespasser then. That is wrong and destroys most any argument the TWRA may make about probable cause because (not even concerning a warrant) they do not believe they even need probable cause.

 

[SSlater]

This is very true.
Look what "government agents" have been doing to Trump.

Despite some legitimate complaints against TWRA, I have found most TWRA people to be honorable and just trying to help out the ethical law-abiding sportsmen and conservationists.

Not that it would have made any difference had they initially known who I was, over the decades, I have had many, many "in the field" encounters with TWRA officers. With but one exception, all have treated me with respect, and given men the benefit of their doubts as to what I may have been doing.

Regarding that one exception, I credit my disagreement with the officer being very new to his role. Just saying, we all make mistakes, we were all once new to a role. This one wrote me a citation, when most would have simply accepted my reasonable explanation, and actually agreed with me. So it's an understatement when I say I was shocked to have been given that citation. But I saw my beef with that particular officer, not with the entire TWRA.

Again, I have had countless encounters with TWRA officers, and have seen first-hand what a challenging "damned if they do, damned if they don't" job they have.

Much of what we find fault is actually more a reflection of the politicians controlling the courts & the fines, coupled with there typically only being 1 or 2 officers per county, working both woods & waters. There is simply no way 1 or 2 county officers can address all our desires, much less our complaints.

For several years running, I had somewhat a public feud with a particular well-known TWRA biologist. We had a difference in opinion. But I know I never hated the man, just disagreed with some of his thoughts, interpretations, and believe he felt likewise about me. Reality was likely more somewhere in between each of our extreme but opposite thoughts at the time.

I will say this:
If TWRA were the vindictive entity some of you seem to think, they would have long ago locked me up and thrown away the key, never mind I've never purposefully violated a game & fish law. Fortunately, most of the TWRA guys (& gals) are just like most of us, i.e. good people.

I'm glad you've had better encounters than me. Fortunately for me, mine have been few and far between and I prefer they stay that way.

 

[SSlater]

Criminals, poachers and other game/fish-law violators lie & make up stuff even more?

We don't live in a perfect world.
Some of the ideas on this thread would make matters worse, not better.

It's a shame when some choose to bash the entire TWRA more than they bash serial poachers?

It's similar to bashing the TN Sherriff departments & the police because crime is so bad.
The root cause of most our problems goes back to our TN legislatures & mayors more than anything TWRA or law-enforcement related?

And, Headhunter, I'm not talking about you, as I hear you bashing the poachers, while others seem to be making excuses for them.

Too many people (nationwide) are siding with criminals instead of those trying to stop their crimes?
"Defund the Police"? "Defund the TWRA"?


Not at all.
Few people on this forum have attacked true government overreach as much as have I.

I've stated the TWRA officer who placed the cell cam made a mistake.
The issues & the law wasn't clear, that's been elaborated on, made clearer now.

Just don't want to see the baby thrown out with the dirty bathwater,
which is exactly what serial poachers want to happen.

Carry on.

I can assure you, I'm NOT on the criminals side. I'm also not on the side of LE who feels the law doesn't apply to them either. Makes them the same to me.

If you can't keep your oath, I'll never have respect for you.

 

[Headhunter]

Quoted from an article I found about the case

During the appeal, attorneys for TWRA argued, "that government agents may enter upon constitutionally protected property without disclosing their presence or retaining a record of their having done so, conceal themselves thereupon for a time period deemed appropriate by the government agents themselves, and search the property for violations of wildlife laws. The TWRA contends that this is reasonable because the officers limit themselves to circumstances where they believe that hunting activities are taking place."

That is just WRONG! They should not be and they are not judge and jury! No way should the TWRA ever have that much freedom to just do whatever they want, where ever and when ever they want to.

 

[mike243]

Where are you reading they are the judge and jury?

 

[Headhunter]

Where are you reading they are the judge and jury?

I have not seen that anywhere. You tell me if there is a difference, the TWRA states they have the right to go anywhere they want, anytime they want, conceal themselves, stay as long they want, all determined by government agents (which is the TWRA) conduct surveillance with only their say so, etc. Not much, if any, difference in my opinion. Why even have a trial when they do not have to follow the constitution, no other law enforcement agency can even do that, without at least probable cause. The TWRA, in their own opinion, need nothing, not a thing, just have to suspect someone may be hunting (funny they did not mention fishing in their arguments in court) even if legal and no law if being broken, they can still trespass on private land anytime, in any way they want, conduct surveillance, etc. At least that is what the TWRA wants everyone to believe. Wrong!

 

[mike243]

While I don't agree with what they did they were operating in good faith with a law that was made a long time ago, the woods and fields are the highways they work just like the city and county/state roads are patrolled by the different agency's, block them from easy access may bring about a lot of changes that might not be good for anybody or the wildlife, I have already read on here of folks formulating what they could now get away with.

 

[Omega]

While I don't agree with what they did they were operating in good faith with a law that was made a long time ago, the woods and fields are the highways they work just like the city and county/state roads are patrolled by the different agency's, block them from easy access may bring about a lot of changes that might not be good for anybody or the wildlife, I have already read on here of folks formulating what they could now get away with.

I disagree, while it would have been totally appropriate, legally, for them to go onto the property and check to see if they were up to no good, like before, when they should have been charged IMO, they decided to opt for a game camera instead, which is not legal to do without a warrant. Then they compounded their error by going all SWAT on the guy to retrieve their illegally placed camera(s?). While they may have thought it was legal, ignorance is not a defense, they did not bother to check with their lawyers, which may, or may not have advised them to get a warrant. By what has been reported, they had more than enough to get one, but their ignorance/arrogance put them in the situation they are in.
Most law-abiding sportsmen have no problem with them coming on their property to keep everyone honest, but it must be done in a legal manner. If asked, I will happily allow them to come on my property, and actually prefer they check on any suspicious activity whether I am there or not. Heck if they want to set up a way to get pre-permission I will participate on all three of my places. I have no need to break game laws, and do not knowingly do so. I have had three negative run-ins with game wardens (one here), the first two, while at the time thought the reg was stupid, I acknowledged that I was guilty, paid the fine and carried on. The third time was one that could have gone much better, long story short, I would have paid the fine for what I was guilty of but was charged for something that to this day I feel I did not do and fought it, lost, but fought it.

 

[Headhunter]

While I don't agree with what they did they were operating in good faith with a law that was made a long time ago, the woods and fields are the highways they work just like the city and county/state roads are patrolled by the different agency's, block them from easy access may bring about a lot of changes that might not be good for anybody or the wildlife, I have already read on here of folks formulating what they could now get away with.

I agree, but they need to AT A MINIMUM have probable cause. It is not only wrong, but illegal for the TWRA to be able to go where they want, when they want, do whatever they deem necessary, stay however long they want, and not really have any oversight.

Also, the open fields doctrine they have referred to, was originally created during prohibition. It had nothing to do with enforcing game laws.

I have never had an issue with a game warden, support them, well except they won't police the immigrant population (legal or illegal immigrants) as they should and I believe other parts of the government are responsible for that. But it still sucks to watch the immigrant population not even remotely pay attention to the law.

And as far as them running boats and jet skis, completely crazy and break many laws.

 

[Headhunter]

I disagree, while it would have been totally appropriate, legally, for them to go onto the property and check to see if they were up to no good, like before, when they should have been charged IMO, they decided to opt for a game camera instead, which is not legal to do without a warrant. Then they compounded their error by going all SWAT on the guy to retrieve their illegally placed camera(s?). While they may have thought it was legal, ignorance is not a defense, they did not bother to check with their lawyers, which may, or may not have advised them to get a warrant. By what has been reported, they had more than enough to get one, but their ignorance/arrogance put them in the situation they are in.
Most law-abiding sportsmen have no problem with them coming on their property to keep everyone honest, but it must be done in a legal manner. If asked, I will happily allow them to come on my property, and actually prefer they check on any suspicious activity whether I am there or not. Heck if they want to set up a way to get pre-permission I will participate on all three of my places. I have no need to break game laws, and do not knowingly do so. I have had three negative run-ins with game wardens (one here), the first two, while at the time thought the reg was stupid, I acknowledged that I was guilty, paid the fine and carried on. The third time was one that could have gone much better, long story short, I would have paid the fine for what I was guilty of but was charged for something that to this day I feel I did not do and fought it, lost, but fought it.

I agree with you, but you are missing the most important part. You mention them having permission or you would give them permission. Most will agree with that.

The TWRA states, they even said it in open court, they do not need permission. All they need to go anywhere they want and do whatever if they believe someone is hunting on the land. They believe they can do whatever they want, at least they think so.

 

[Omega]

I agree with you, but you are missing the most important part. You mention them having permission or you would give them permission. Most will agree with that.

The TWRA states, they even said it in open court, they do not need permission. All they need to go anywhere they want and do whatever if they believe someone is hunting on the land. They believe they can do whatever they want, at least they think so.

Yea, before this case, and most likely it would still be this way but for this case, they did not require permission to be on private land. I think if they had policed themselves and acted in good faith, most of us would not be siding with the plaintiffs in this case. If the camera and following SWAT action had not happened, most of us would be praising TWRA for getting on them for violating game laws.

When LEO steps over the line, even if it is legal, I have a problem with it. If someone gets pulled over for a faulty taillight, license plate light or other moving violation and they discover contraband or other infractions, most of us don't care, but when they then confiscate large sums of money, with no charges, and make you sue them to get it back, we all have a problem with that. Same with no-knock warrants when it is not necessary such as with a non-violent offender or blue-collar law-breaker. If they use such tactics on someone wanted for murder, drug dealing, bank robbery, etc, nobody will think twice about it, but when they kick in the door for someone being arrested for lying to the FBI, or some such BS I think most of us have a problem with it.

 

[Headhunter]

Once I found out the TWRA thought they could go anywhere, anytime they wanted and it was up to the government agents to make all the decisions concerning their TRESPASSING, I would have a major problem with it anytime they went anywhere without at least probable cause.

 

[Bloodwolf1984]

While I support twra....imho...it violates your rights ....I agree with this