CDFG

[Mahigeer]

Originally Posted by Silbaugh4liberty

Think about this, how come you never see DFG at the piers? These people use way too many poles, keep short fish etc. Even calling to report people, the DFG don't care, why? Because they have no jurisdiction, since all those pier fisherman have no license , aka contract with them.

That is an incorrect assumption and statement.

As the former southern California representative and board member of United Pier and Shore Anglers of California (UPSAC), I have spent a lot of time fishing California piers.

I have been inspected many times at different piers. I have made friends with the wardens, and know them by name. I have even been given their private cell numbers and business cards.

Each warden is a fish and game warden. That encompasses a large area for each warden to inspect.
Our licenses pay some toward hiring of more wardens. They are underpaid and over worked.

I have fought the City of Manhattan Beach when they closed the pier due to a shark incident.The city lawyer cited the California fishing constitution law, yet they closed the pier for nearly three months and put regulations that they had no right to do.

Thus, my recommendation is to have the license, to be polite to the wardens, and fight any injustice you feel in the court, not on the water.


By the way if the warden who checked the OP is named John Potter, he is the nicest warden that I have met. He used to have Catalina, now he is in SD.

[Silbaugh4liberty]

Originally Posted by Mahigeer

That is an incorrect assumption and statement.

As the former southern California representative and board member of United Pier and Shore Anglers of California (UPSAC), I have spent a lot of time fishing California piers.

I have been inspected many times at different piers. I have made friends with the wardens, and know them by name. I have even been given their private cell numbers and business cards.

Each warden is a fish and game warden. That encompasses a large area for each warden to inspect.
Our licenses pay some toward hiring of more wardens. They are underpaid and over worked.

I have fought the City of Manhattan Beach when they closed the pier due to a shark incident.The city lawyer cited the California fishing constitution law, yet they closed the pier for nearly three months and put regulations that they had no right to do.

Thus, my recommendation is to have the license, to be polite to the wardens, and fight any injustice you feel in the court, not on the water.


By the way if the warden who checked the OP is named John Potter, he is the nicest warden that I have met. He used to have Catalina, now he is in SD.

I'm just speaking from my own experience that I have never seen DFG officers at the pier. I've only seen survey takers in which they asked if you'd like to participate in a survey and that's it. Thus far I haven't had any unpleasant encounters with DFG officers and I've always been respectful to them. However it seems that other people have had some unpleasant experiences. And I definitely don't intend to be confrontational with any or police officers for that matter. The best thing to do is be courteous, but put them on notice that you're invoking your constitutionally protected rights and if you do happen to get a ticket, then you have the ability to not only challenge the ticket in court but also go on the offensive in filing your own complaint against the officer if that were to happen. Standing up for yourself doesn't mean being an a****** to everybody you come across with a badge. You have to take in consideration they only know what they have been taught. They do not realize what they are enforcing is a violation of constitutional rights, so it is your duty to politely advise them that you are invoking your constitutional rights if you wish to do so. You do not have to do exactly as they say just because they have a badge, but if they pull out their gun, or tackle you to the ground, I would not resist in fear of my life. That is when you do sign the ticket with 1-308 (under duress, without prejudice), basically advising them that you're signing under the threat of force, and then you can fight it legally.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[monstahfish]

Someone cited section 25 stating it gives the state the right to set the conditions and restrictions. Sounds like an open and shut case to me. It's the same thing as the second amendment argument where people either due to ignorance or willfulness forget the first part about a well regulated militia. Would a well regulated militia have an unchecked armory? I'm not anti gun, I own guns, but I went through a background check and show my id when I buy ammo and follow storage regulations. I don't feel like my rights have been infringed and if I were to read the 2nd amendment in a textualist manner, I would imagine I should have to be a member of a local militia, which I would imagine if it's well regulated would also have safety training etc...