|
|
Post by jordanffemt on Jul 24, 2013 8:18:51 GMT -5
I like how CO's can't give you a straight Yes or No answer to a question 80 % of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jul 24, 2013 8:28:58 GMT -5
I like how CO's can't give you a straight Yes or No answer to a question 80 % of the time. They do have a LOT of laws - game and otherwise to remember.. Yes. They do a good job. |
|
|
|
Post by GS1 on Jul 24, 2013 10:09:07 GMT -5
80% of the time they are dealing with morons that wouldn't understand a straight answer if they heard one.
The laws are not that complicated and are all available online. Why don't you just look them up?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jamie Brooks 1John5:13 on Jul 24, 2013 15:26:15 GMT -5
Sometimes I need an interpreter.
|
|
|
|
Post by featherduster on Jul 25, 2013 6:54:14 GMT -5
And sometimes it's not the answer they were hoping to hear.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnc911 on Jul 26, 2013 6:03:45 GMT -5
So whats the point of this ?
|
|
|
|
Post by woodswalker56 on Jul 26, 2013 6:38:53 GMT -5
Jordanffemt's comment is way off base. To make his 80% comment one must assume he is continuously making inquires and getting either no answer or unclear answers. The laws are pretty clear, but occasionaly do need some interpretation for clarification. However a lot of individuals will get a response and then they will follow up with what if....? Well the what if is where the CO has to use his/her discretion to determine the intent of the individual/s and how the law will apply. I'd say that overall they do a very good job. It is our responsibility as sportsmen to observe and obey the law. If you are asking what if questions, you are probably trying to figure a way around the law. I think that Officer Morrison does a very good job of answering inquiries on this site, so Jordanffemt if you feel you have gotten the run around ask Morrison your question. I'm sure he can give you the straight skinny on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jordanffemt on Jul 28, 2013 21:03:20 GMT -5
Jordanffemt's comment is way off base. To make his 80% comment one must assume he is continuously making inquires and getting either no answer or unclear answers. The laws are pretty clear, but occasionaly do need some interpretation for clarification. However a lot of individuals will get a response and then they will follow up with what if....? Well the what if is where the CO has to use his/her discretion to determine the intent of the individual/s and how the law will apply. If you are asking what if questions, you are probably trying to figure a way around the law. I think that Officer Morrison does a very good job of answering inquiries on this site, so Jordanffemt if you feel you have gotten the run around ask Morrison your question. I'm sure he can give you the straight skinny on it. I rarely ask a question, but I read all of the questions and answers, an not just on this site. Maybe I should've said its my opinion, because right or wrong everyone is entitled to there own opinion. your assumptions of me are incorrect. I don't understand u saying Im way off base. my comment wasn't under someone else's tread, question or comment "I'd say that overall they do a very good job. It is our responsibility as sportsmen to observe and obey the law." I agree with this above comment. but not the below comment "If you are asking what if questions, you are probably trying to figure a way around the law" |
|
|
|
Post by Jamie Brooks 1John5:13 on Jul 29, 2013 7:52:01 GMT -5
Jordanffemt's comment is way off base. To make his 80% comment one must assume he is continuously making inquires and getting either no answer or unclear answers. The laws are pretty clear, but occasionaly do need some interpretation for clarification. However a lot of individuals will get a response and then they will follow up with what if....? Well the what if is where the CO has to use his/her discretion to determine the intent of the individual/s and how the law will apply. If you are asking what if questions, you are probably trying to figure a way around the law. I think that Officer Morrison does a very good job of answering inquiries on this site, so Jordanffemt if you feel you have gotten the run around ask Morrison your question. I'm sure he can give you the straight skinny on it. I rarely ask a question, but I read all of the questions and answers, an not just on this site. Maybe I should've said its my opinion, because right or wrong everyone is entitled to there own opinion. your assumptions of me are incorrect. I don't understand u saying Im way off base. my comment wasn't under someone else's tread, question or comment "I'd say that overall they do a very good job. It is our responsibility as sportsmen to observe and obey the law." I agree with this above comment. but not the below comment "If you are asking what if questions, you are probably trying to figure a way around the law" I know what you're saying jordanffemt, and what woodswalker is saying. I ask a lot of questions. The problem is that we really want to hear a simple yes or no; however, very often there are limitations, exceptions and exemptions to many of the laws. So, unless the question is very specific, there may not be a simple answer. Basically, you are correct in saying that in a high percentage of general questions there isn't a simple yes or not to a general question when it refers to the law. It's like asking a cop if it's legal to shoot a person. The answer is yes and no depending on the circumstances. Any seemingly negative comment will ruffle a few feathers, even if it's about Obama on a hunting site. :-) Hey, I hope you have a great day! |
|
|
|
Post by jordanffemt on Jul 29, 2013 9:16:36 GMT -5
U too Jon
|
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Aug 4, 2013 23:29:35 GMT -5
Being this is in the waterfowl thread, one can only assume the comment was directed toward waterfowl questions. Waterfowl is regulated by Federal Law not State. State wildlife regulations say what you can do, Federal game regulations say what you can't do. Since the State CO's are tasked with enforcing both State and Federal game regulations it is real easy to get into a situation where the CO needs something clarified before a straight yes or no answer can be given.
|
|
|
|
Post by jordanffemt on Aug 7, 2013 7:39:20 GMT -5
Being this is in the waterfowl thread, one can only assume the comment was directed toward waterfowl questions. Waterfowl is regulated by Federal Law not State. State wildlife regulations say what you can do, Federal game regulations say what you can't do. Since the State CO's are tasked with enforcing both State and Federal game regulations it is real easy to get into a situation where the CO needs something clarified before a straight yes or no answer can be given. Well your wrong also. It had nothing to do with waterfowl hunting or any specfic question. |
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Aug 8, 2013 9:40:22 GMT -5
Being this is in the waterfowl thread, one can only assume the comment was directed toward waterfowl questions. Waterfowl is regulated by Federal Law not State. State wildlife regulations say what you can do, Federal game regulations say what you can't do. Since the State CO's are tasked with enforcing both State and Federal game regulations it is real easy to get into a situation where the CO needs something clarified before a straight yes or no answer can be given. Well your wrong also. It had nothing to do with waterfowl hunting or any specfic question. Giving people the benefit of the doubt has made me wrong before. I'm alright with that. |
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Aug 11, 2013 23:07:12 GMT -5
Most laws have exceptions and situations that come up where they can't be applied strictly as written.
As a quick example, swimming is not permitted in the lakes in the nearest state forest. Boating is, with manual or electric power.
So will you be ticketed if your canoe capsizes and you save yourself, or do you have to drown to remain legal?
The best course of action there is obvious and probably would be the unanimous choice....but it's technically illegal.
Probably not the question you had in mind, but it does illustrate that sometimes there is a situation that makes the answer that applies to the usual situation inapplicable.
And there can be conflicting regulations that are difficult to find the answers to. I noticed last fall that all the parking areas at the sign-in boxes down near Monroe Reservoir were posted against camping "in this area". No definition of "area" was given. The word is normally used to designate the entire large sections of land being visited, but primitive camping has always been done in those "areas" and still is presented as one of the activities to be enjoyed there in the brochures at the manager's office.
Oh, and one of my pet peeves for several years regarding that general area is the requirement to sign in and take a visitor's card with you. The regulation clearly states that you should take a card for only that day's visit, and not take extras. Now, canoeing and camping are allowed. But the only way to stay technically legal in having the card in your possession that is made out for the day of your visit, would be to paddle and hike out in the middle of the night each night of your stay and pick up fresh cards at midnight! I asked the property manager how to comply with that regulation and he pondered it for a while, and finally said to go ahead and take enough cards to cover each day of my intended stay and fill out a fresh one each morning to retain in my immediate possession, then turn them all in upon my return. Made sense, in terms of being the most sensible solution, but it was clearly against the stated regulations.
Almost all regulations have some situations that arise or can be imagined where they can not reasonably be applied. These areas are where the discretion and judgment of the LE officer is needed. Of course, being human, they have varying levels of expertise and varying levels of ability to understand even well explained situations that might represent an exception to the "book". And in dealing with all the regulations that they are called upon to enforce, with sometimes overlapping or indistinct regulatory boundaries, they would need encyclopedic memories to answer all imaginable variations.
IMO, most of the confusion stems from the over-regulation of all aspects of our lives. The person charged with enforcing or explaining them is often at as much of a loss as we are in understanding them, but they usually do their best.
I agree that Officer Morrison has definitely improved the quality of responses to the questions on this site, but even he can't cover all imaginable variations and situations in a response that be contained in reasonable length for reading online, and could be typed in a reasonable portion of his day.
There is always the option of calling up the regulations online, and exploring them for yourself. That's an interesting exercise in attempting to decode legalese into regular English. Kinda fun as a puzzle on a cold winter day, but not very handy if you need the answer tomorrow, and quite often not exactly in agreement with the law as decided in court, even after you decode the legalese.
Can it be a problem? Sure. Has been since the first laws were passed, probably. That's life. Might not be the perfect system, but it will have to do until someone invents a better one.
|
|
