Post by Russ Koon on Dec 28, 2007 3:23:47 GMT -5
I posted a question to the CO's on the forum provided for that purpose, concerning the definition of "possession" for the purpose of determining the possession limit.
Buster was kind enough to respond to my question, even though he admitted that it was with some hesitation because of controversy that always arises when the subject is breached.
I want to thank him for answering and I want to make it clear that any and all disagreement, argument, or bad opinions I may have of the possession limits, it's the regulation that I am against, not Buster or any of the other CO's who are kind enough to take the time to answer our questions and try to help us make sense of the laws. These guys do a very difficult job to the best of their abilities and do it very well, and I have the greatest respect for their efforts.
They can't help it if some of the regulations suck 8^). They didn't write 'em, they just got stuck with trying to enforce 'em.
Now to the regulation itself......
As Buster points out in his reply, the definition is vague, and may vary depending on the interpretation of the individual CO enforcing it. That in itself should qualify the regulation for a review as to whether to amend it so it's at least understood the same way by all those charged with enforcing it, or maybe drop it as being unenforcable.
Would we want some state policemen to stop us for speeding if we were going 70 kilometers per hour, while some stopped us only if we were exceeding 70 miles per hour? Probably not.
So are we in violation of the possession limit if we still have ten squirrels in the freezer when we go out and kill some more?
How about if we gave some away to Granny and she made squirrel and dumplings, and we brought home some of the leftovers? Do we need to keep track of the portions, or the approximate portion of the whole pot that was left over and divide it by the number of squirrels that went in to the original potful? Sure it's ridiculous, but where does the law say that we can violate it a little bit, just not very much? Isn't that another sign of a law that might need changing, if you can't very well tell for sure whether you're legal or not?
Of course we could keep our squirrels whole until we fix them and keep count on the remaining ones in the freezer, and just not go hunting them again until we are under the possession limit, then remember how many we can legally take and stop shooting at that point. That would be the only way to remain legal for sure, so it must be the way that everyone does it, isn't it? Or are there some otherwise very legal hunters out there who go ahead and fill that freezer with squirrels during season, obeying the daily bag limits, and eat them when they want to, year round, without worrying about possession limits at all?
Are there squirrel hunters out there who refuse to accept the squirrels offered them by someone they're hunting with who doesn't have time to go home and put them in his own freezer, because the ones he offers would put them over the possession limit?
And if one hunter has several non-hunting family members, and friends, and co-workers, who like squirrel and will take any excess off his hands, why should he be able to hunt squirrels every day and merely stay within the daily limit, while another hunter without such family friends, and co-workeers, has to refrain from going squirrel hunting again until he's eaten the last bunch? I like squirrel, fried or crock-potted, or in a batch of dumplings, but I'd sure get tired of having them every day so I could go hunting again. And what is the state's interest in how fast I eat my squirrels?
Here again, my argument is NOT with Buster or anyone else charged with trying to enforce the regulation, but with the regulation itself.
Buster goes on to explain that the intent of the regulation was to slow down the enthusiastic hunters from taking their daily limit every day and depleting the supply for others. OK, I can see that as a legitimate intent, at least in the case of some species (probably not squirrels), but I still see the possession limit as a terrible way to try to achieve that intent. The sociable hunter with the large extended family and the work environment full of meat-eaters above will still get to take his limit every day, so the law is ineffective against him, with all it's good intent, and the single hunter who doesn't have those outlets for his squirrels, or geese, or whatever, is going to get real tired of game during season and then have to eat his final possession limit only very occasionally during the rest of the year.
And then there are serious questions as to the enforcability of the regulation. If the law applies to to the animals in our freezers, as Buster says it might, depending on which CO we have looking into our freezer and counting frozen meat packages, what if we're keeping some there for our brother who lives in an apartment and doesn't have much freezer space, or a buddy whose ex has the freezer he used to keep his game in? Do we get to share our freezer spaces with friends and family without taking the responsibility of ownership of the frozen carcasses?
Buster mentions the slew of questions that always arises when the subject comes up, and I can certainly see where there would be a great many.
That tells me that there is serious question as to the value of a regulation that is seldom understood, rarely obeyed, darned near impossible to enforce effectively, and is completely uneven in its effect on people depending on such factors as their co-workers eating habits of their friends' and family's ownership of freezer space.
It might be different if the regulation was actually effective in achieving the desired result. I doubt very seriously that this one is. I can't imagine that any gamehog who wanted to exceed the possession limits and who bothered to get a lawyer involved would ever end up losing his case if he claimed he was just keeping some of the game for his friends, whose names were written right there on the packages. And in the case of rabbits, ducks, geese, turkeys, grouse, quail, or any other animals available pen-raised, how will it be determined which are wild rabbits and which were caged? Is it legal to keep our Iowa rabbits or our Tennessee squirrels in the same freezer with our Indiana ones?
OK, lots of writing, but I just wanted to make the case that we would be better off not keeping a law that is unfair, unenforcable, not understood, seldom obeyed, and which doesn't achieve the intended result. With our number of hunters in serious decline, especially small game hunters, we probably don't even need to try to protect the resource against overharvest, beyond the daily bag limits.
Laws that are generally ignored are not just silly things to snicker at when they're pointed out. They are harmful in that they decrease the respect for the law generally. If a law doesn't do what it was intended to do, it should be stricken from the books or rewritten until it performs it's job.
Those of us who try to obey the laws as written, and those who do their best to enforce them, both deserve laws that are worth our efforts. The possession limits are not, and IMO should just be dropped entirely.
If enough guys actually read all this drivel and would like to see something done to fix the problem, I'd be glad to help write up something suitable to present to the DNR. It's a little thing, I guess, but it's something pretty silly that I'd like to see fixed, to restore a little bit of respect for the law by making this piece of it something less of a joke.
And thanks again to Buster in this case, and to all our CO's who answer our questions.
We're on the same side in this, I believe. I know I'd feel better about enforcing the laws if there weren't some that were so completely ignored, ineffective, and downright silly. And I'd be embarrassed by this one.
I'm guessing it might not be good workplace policy for you guys to publicly say anything derogatory about any regulations that are on the books. If some of us civilians get together on this, we may be able to generate some pressure to fix this item.
Buster was kind enough to respond to my question, even though he admitted that it was with some hesitation because of controversy that always arises when the subject is breached.
I want to thank him for answering and I want to make it clear that any and all disagreement, argument, or bad opinions I may have of the possession limits, it's the regulation that I am against, not Buster or any of the other CO's who are kind enough to take the time to answer our questions and try to help us make sense of the laws. These guys do a very difficult job to the best of their abilities and do it very well, and I have the greatest respect for their efforts.
They can't help it if some of the regulations suck 8^). They didn't write 'em, they just got stuck with trying to enforce 'em.
Now to the regulation itself......
As Buster points out in his reply, the definition is vague, and may vary depending on the interpretation of the individual CO enforcing it. That in itself should qualify the regulation for a review as to whether to amend it so it's at least understood the same way by all those charged with enforcing it, or maybe drop it as being unenforcable.
Would we want some state policemen to stop us for speeding if we were going 70 kilometers per hour, while some stopped us only if we were exceeding 70 miles per hour? Probably not.
So are we in violation of the possession limit if we still have ten squirrels in the freezer when we go out and kill some more?
How about if we gave some away to Granny and she made squirrel and dumplings, and we brought home some of the leftovers? Do we need to keep track of the portions, or the approximate portion of the whole pot that was left over and divide it by the number of squirrels that went in to the original potful? Sure it's ridiculous, but where does the law say that we can violate it a little bit, just not very much? Isn't that another sign of a law that might need changing, if you can't very well tell for sure whether you're legal or not?
Of course we could keep our squirrels whole until we fix them and keep count on the remaining ones in the freezer, and just not go hunting them again until we are under the possession limit, then remember how many we can legally take and stop shooting at that point. That would be the only way to remain legal for sure, so it must be the way that everyone does it, isn't it? Or are there some otherwise very legal hunters out there who go ahead and fill that freezer with squirrels during season, obeying the daily bag limits, and eat them when they want to, year round, without worrying about possession limits at all?
Are there squirrel hunters out there who refuse to accept the squirrels offered them by someone they're hunting with who doesn't have time to go home and put them in his own freezer, because the ones he offers would put them over the possession limit?
And if one hunter has several non-hunting family members, and friends, and co-workers, who like squirrel and will take any excess off his hands, why should he be able to hunt squirrels every day and merely stay within the daily limit, while another hunter without such family friends, and co-workeers, has to refrain from going squirrel hunting again until he's eaten the last bunch? I like squirrel, fried or crock-potted, or in a batch of dumplings, but I'd sure get tired of having them every day so I could go hunting again. And what is the state's interest in how fast I eat my squirrels?
Here again, my argument is NOT with Buster or anyone else charged with trying to enforce the regulation, but with the regulation itself.
Buster goes on to explain that the intent of the regulation was to slow down the enthusiastic hunters from taking their daily limit every day and depleting the supply for others. OK, I can see that as a legitimate intent, at least in the case of some species (probably not squirrels), but I still see the possession limit as a terrible way to try to achieve that intent. The sociable hunter with the large extended family and the work environment full of meat-eaters above will still get to take his limit every day, so the law is ineffective against him, with all it's good intent, and the single hunter who doesn't have those outlets for his squirrels, or geese, or whatever, is going to get real tired of game during season and then have to eat his final possession limit only very occasionally during the rest of the year.
And then there are serious questions as to the enforcability of the regulation. If the law applies to to the animals in our freezers, as Buster says it might, depending on which CO we have looking into our freezer and counting frozen meat packages, what if we're keeping some there for our brother who lives in an apartment and doesn't have much freezer space, or a buddy whose ex has the freezer he used to keep his game in? Do we get to share our freezer spaces with friends and family without taking the responsibility of ownership of the frozen carcasses?
Buster mentions the slew of questions that always arises when the subject comes up, and I can certainly see where there would be a great many.
That tells me that there is serious question as to the value of a regulation that is seldom understood, rarely obeyed, darned near impossible to enforce effectively, and is completely uneven in its effect on people depending on such factors as their co-workers eating habits of their friends' and family's ownership of freezer space.
It might be different if the regulation was actually effective in achieving the desired result. I doubt very seriously that this one is. I can't imagine that any gamehog who wanted to exceed the possession limits and who bothered to get a lawyer involved would ever end up losing his case if he claimed he was just keeping some of the game for his friends, whose names were written right there on the packages. And in the case of rabbits, ducks, geese, turkeys, grouse, quail, or any other animals available pen-raised, how will it be determined which are wild rabbits and which were caged? Is it legal to keep our Iowa rabbits or our Tennessee squirrels in the same freezer with our Indiana ones?
OK, lots of writing, but I just wanted to make the case that we would be better off not keeping a law that is unfair, unenforcable, not understood, seldom obeyed, and which doesn't achieve the intended result. With our number of hunters in serious decline, especially small game hunters, we probably don't even need to try to protect the resource against overharvest, beyond the daily bag limits.
Laws that are generally ignored are not just silly things to snicker at when they're pointed out. They are harmful in that they decrease the respect for the law generally. If a law doesn't do what it was intended to do, it should be stricken from the books or rewritten until it performs it's job.
Those of us who try to obey the laws as written, and those who do their best to enforce them, both deserve laws that are worth our efforts. The possession limits are not, and IMO should just be dropped entirely.
If enough guys actually read all this drivel and would like to see something done to fix the problem, I'd be glad to help write up something suitable to present to the DNR. It's a little thing, I guess, but it's something pretty silly that I'd like to see fixed, to restore a little bit of respect for the law by making this piece of it something less of a joke.
And thanks again to Buster in this case, and to all our CO's who answer our questions.
We're on the same side in this, I believe. I know I'd feel better about enforcing the laws if there weren't some that were so completely ignored, ineffective, and downright silly. And I'd be embarrassed by this one.
I'm guessing it might not be good workplace policy for you guys to publicly say anything derogatory about any regulations that are on the books. If some of us civilians get together on this, we may be able to generate some pressure to fix this item.