Experience with Fish & Game

Superfly · 12-03-2006, 01:02 PM

Just curious if anyone has any experiences that they would like to share with F&G Officers.

I was out with a buddy this season and he was approched by Fish & Game. My understanding, his fish limit to keep was three but he was holding five in the tank while still fishing. His intention was to keep the three biggest at the end of the day and throw the rest back.

On a quite rainy day, F&G approached, boarded his boat and inspected his holding tank. He was cited for two over the limit and received a fine in the area of $185, and lost his fishing license for the rest of the season. This was an honest misinterruptation of the fishing laws. F&G was all business, professional but no breaks.

This certainly seems alot more harsh than some of the threads I read concerning Marine Patrol. I think both agencies are looking for operators under the influence and they'll use any legal reason to stop and check the operator. I applaud any agency that removes intoxicated operators from the water.

wires1999 · 12-03-2006, 01:11 PM

Gee I don't know about that one. I'd have to agree with F&G, what happened if some of the fish died while in the tank, it happens.

meteotrade · 12-03-2006, 07:46 PM

Well, if his intention was to keep only the 3 largest fish at the end of the day, would it not have been prudent to hold only the 3 largest fish at any given time? I.e. if he caught a lunker and already had 3 in the tank, toss out the smallest to make room for the big one. I'm a catch and release guy, but that seems to be the common sense way to follow the rules.

NightWing · 12-03-2006, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superfly

I think both agencies are looking for operators under the influence and they'll use any legal reason to stop and check the operator.

I don't believe F&G enforces BWI laws.

Kamper · 12-04-2006, 05:26 PM

It's been a while since I got a license but I believe the wording on bags limits includes a term like "in possesion."

For Christmas, get your friend a current copy of the reg.s so he can brush up.

Good luck!

SIKSUKR · 12-05-2006, 11:06 AM

I think meteotrade is right on this one.Its pretty simple to throw back the smaller fish when a larger one is caught.How else should the F&G act when confronted with this situation.I'm sure they have heard your friends argument many times before.If it truely was an error on your friends part,I guess it's a lesson learned the hard way.

Woodsy · 12-05-2006, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NightWing

I don't believe F&G enforces BWI laws.

it might not be thier primary mission when it comes right down to it however Fish and Game most certainly does enforce BWI/DWI laws.

Try driving drunk on a snowmobile and see what they say...

Woodsy

NightWing · 12-05-2006, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy

it might not be thier primary mission when it comes right down to it however Fish and Game most certainly does enforce BWI/DWI laws.

Try driving drunk on a snowmobile and see what they say...

Woodsy

Snowmobile regulations prohibit operating under the influence, as do the regs for OHRVs. Where does it say in the fishing regulations that BWI is enforced by F&G?

Kamper · 12-05-2006, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NightWing

Snowmobile regulations prohibit operating under the influence, as do the regs for OHRVs. Where does it say in the fishing regulations that BWI is enforced by F&G?

It doesnt have to. In New Hampshire (and most states), a police officer's authority is not limited by the agency they are assigned to. A state Fire Marshal can arrest you for drug dealing if they see it. A trooper can cite you for for illegal fishing and F&G could pull you over on I-93 for speeding.

Specific agencies may have primary responsibilities but they all have authority of the State to act. Normally the investigation would be turned over to the primary department if it were complex but something like BWI is probably part of Cop101 training.

So behave yourself!

NightWing · 12-05-2006, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kamper

It doesnt have to. In New Hampshire (and most states), a police officer's authority is not limited by the agency they are assigned to. A state Fire Marshal can arrest you for drug dealing if they see it. A trooper can cite you for for illegal fishing and F&G could pull you over on I-93 for speeding.

Specific agencies may have primary responsibilities but they all have authority of the State to act. Normally the investigation would be turned over to the primary department if it were complex but something like BWI is probably part of Cop101 training.

So behave yourself!

I have no issue with your post because it is all correct. Any LEO can act if a law is broken in his presence, but most prefer to stay within their normally trained field.

Field sobriety testing on a boat operator is particular to MP. Balance tests on the water are not valid and conventional DWI FSTs are land based balance tests. Shy of a falling down drunk fisherman, an arrest could be made based on observations, but I would bet that most F&G officers would rather not pursue a BWI arrest on a fisherman who is not obviously drunk, but has signs of consumption and perhaps some impairment.

On the same note, I can't imagine a MP officer checking fishing licenses and catch limits because that is the job of F&G, and the MP was not trained in it.

If all laws were enforced by all agencies, then there would only be a need for one mammoth agency with thousands of officers checking everything from amusement rides to axle loading to trout taken in season. I don't think that would be a fun job.

Skip · 12-05-2006, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kamper

...It doesnt have to. In New Hampshire (and most states), a police officer's authority is not limited by the agency they are assigned to....Specific agencies may have primary responsibilities but they all have authority of the State to act....

Actually, in New Hampshire, a police officer's authority IS LIMITED by the agency they are assigned to!

In New Hampshire, by statute, a Deputy Sheriff has full law enforcement powers in the entire State and can act on both criminal & civil law. They are, by statute, the most powerful law enforcement agents in the State.

State Police personnel have powers that are limited in communities with populations over 3000.

Local police officers only have jurisdiction (and arrest powers) in the local community that they serve, with only several narrow exceptions.

Likewise, MP officers, again by statute, are limited in the scope of their respective law enforcement powers.

In the particular agency we are speaking of, conservation officers fall somewhere in the area between troopers & deputies.

New Hampshire has a very complicated hierarchy of law enforcement powers & capabilities.

As usual, Nightwing has pretty accurately explained the situation...

Kamper · 12-05-2006, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NightWing

... If all laws were enforced by all agencies, then there would only be a need for one mammoth agency with thousands of officers checking everything from amusement rides to axle loading to trout taken in season. I don't think that would be a fun job.

I defer to "Skip's" professional knowledge on the subject.

However, the advantage of having multiple agencies is that agents develop an expertise in the specific fields to which they are assigned. This would be regardless of the extant of their actual authorites.

I dont think it would be a fun job either. You'd need to issue each offier a book-mobile so they could be certain to cite the appropriate statue or regulation!

As always, it's an educational experience to participate in this forum.

JTA · 12-05-2006, 08:04 PM

A few years ago a whacko went on a rampage, shot and killed a couple of people (one a trooper, I think), then he ran to a place he had in northern NH where he was captured by Fish and Game officers. It impressed me at the time that they're a pretty fierce bunch when necessary. Someone please correct me on the details if I'm wrong.

Skip · 12-05-2006, 08:11 PM

Can a conservation officer make a BWI arrest if he comes across an intoxicated boat operator? Yep....and they will.

Are they out checking creels as a guise to make BWI arrests? Nope.

Actually, a conservation officer, in the course of his duties, could (while on patrol in his vehicle) make a DWI arrest under the appropriate conditions. However, it happens very rarely and as has been pointed out they would most likely call in the appropriate law enforcement agency to take over the arrest.

Bottom line? Conservation officers routinely make creel checks and issue the appropriate citation upon discovering a violation because that is what they are trained and empowered and expected to do. They also make an occasional arrest for a secondary violation when the opportunity presents itself, not because of some nefarious sublot but because that is what they are trained and empoered and expected to do!

In retrospect regarding intent both Kamper & Nightwing are correct...

SIKSUKR · 12-07-2006, 01:50 PM

Can't any of us make a "citizen's arrest" till a leo shows up or is that some old wives tale?Skip?

NightWing · 12-07-2006, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Can't any of us make a "citizen's arrest" till a leo shows up or is that some old wives tale?Skip?

From Wikipedia

United States

All states permit citizen arrests if a felony crime is witnessed by the citizen carrying out the arrest, or when a citizen is asked to help apprehend a suspect by the police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanor crimes, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. Note particularly that American citizens do not have the authorities or the legal protections of the police, and are liable before both the civil law and criminal law for any violation of the rights of another. In the United States, the police do not have to determine the legality of the citizens arrest and this practice has been greatly criticized.

The State of North Carolina Supreme court has passed down the decision that in the state of North Carolina there is no such thing as legal citizen's arrest. However, if a citizen witnesses the commission of a felony, he may detain a subject for just as long as it takes local authorities to arrive. This is referred to as a citizen's detention, rather than a citizen's arrest.

Citizens Arrest as a form of Vigilante Justice

Citizens arrest has been criticized by legal and human rights activists who have labelled it as vigilante justice. Critics claim that it promotes a lynch mob mentality. [3].There are many instances where citizens arrest has been abused in the United States.The practice of citizens arrest and bounty hunting has led Professor John Langbein of Yale Law School to call the American Justice system "Amazonian".

Legal and political aspects

Most law enforcement officials discourage anyone from performing a citizen's arrest, especially where physical force is involved (see Monopoly on the legitimate use of force). A person who makes a citizen's arrest could risk exposing themselves to possible lawsuits or criminal charges (such as charges of impersonating police, false imprisonment, kidnapping, or wrongful arrest) if the wrong person is apprehended or a suspect's civil rights are violated.

The level of responsibility that a person performing a citizen's arrest may bear depends on the jurisdiction. For instance, in France and Germany, a person stopping a criminal from committing a crime, including crimes against belongings, is not criminally responsible as long as the means employed are in proportion to the threat (note, however, that at least in Germany this results from a different legal norm: "self-defense" and "aid to others in immediate danger"—which are concerned with prevention not prosecution of crimes).

Personal safety

The act of making an arrest may be dangerous in several senses. First and foremost is the likelihood that the arrest will be resisted, possibly with force or even a weapon. Further, the typical private person is not trained or equipped to carry out an arrest safely—even security guards who are familiar with citizen's arrest may lack sufficient training. As well, many legal jurisdictions consider the citizen's arrest to be a special case where any mistake by the arresting party may result in civil or criminal liability. Excessive force may result in criminal charges against the arresting party.

In areas where police services are available, anyone witnessing a serious crime is usually advised for their own safety to notify the police rather than attempting direct intervention. Even if intervention is attempted, the safest objective may be to scare off the assailant or criminal rather than to attempt to take them into custody. In addition, it is also advised that anyone witnessing a crime also focus on trying to remember as much detail as possible such as the appearance of the criminal in order to supply the police with information.

Lakegeezer · 12-07-2006, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Can't any of us make a "citizen's arrest" till a leo shows up or is that some old wives tale?Skip?

One might try to make a citizen's arrest, but who would stick around when someone wants to cause them trouble. Resisting an officer is against the law. How about resisting a citizen arrest?

Skip · 12-07-2006, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Can't any of us make a "citizen's arrest" till a leo shows up or is that some old wives tale?Skip?

Except for a merchant clause (to detain shoplifters) a citizen in New Hampshire can only effect an "arrest" on another citizen during the commision of a felony. Use of force in New Hampshire is a concept drilled into every LEO on an annual basis as required by the New Hampshire Police Standards and Training Commission. The consequences of employing force to detain an individual always has very serious overtones and is never to be taken lightly. The liability on the part of one citizen effecting an arrest on another is tremendous!

Please read this RSA very carefully, every LEO in this State is drilled, re-drilled and drilled again on this one particular RSA!!!

Here is the entire RSA, with SIKSUKR's portion of interest highlighted in RED.

TITLE LXII
CRIMINAL CODE
CHAPTER 627
JUSTIFICATION
Section 627:5
627:5 Physical Force in Law Enforcement. –
I. A law enforcement officer is justified in using non-deadly force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to effect an arrest or detention or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested or detained person, unless he knows that the arrest or detention is illegal, or to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of non-deadly force encountered while attempting to effect such an arrest or detention or while seeking to prevent such an escape.
II. A law enforcement officer is justified in using deadly force only when he reasonably believes such force is necessary:
(a) To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes is the imminent use of deadly force; or
(b) To effect an arrest or prevent the escape from custody of a person whom he reasonably believes:
(1) Has committed or is committing a felony involving the use of force or violence, is using a deadly weapon in attempting to escape, or otherwise indicates that he is likely to seriously endanger human life or inflict serious bodily injury unless apprehended without delay; and
(2) He had made reasonable efforts to advise the person that he is a law enforcement officer attempting to effect an arrest and has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is aware of these facts.
(c) Nothing in this paragraph constitutes justification for conduct by a law enforcement officer amounting to an offense against innocent persons whom he is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody.
III. A private person who has been directed by a law enforcement officer to assist him in effecting an arrest or preventing an escape from custody is justified in using:
(a) Non-deadly force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to carry out the officer's direction, unless he believes the arrest is illegal; or
(b) Deadly force only when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of deadly force, or when the law enforcement officer directs him to use deadly force and he believes such officer himself is authorized to use deadly force under the circumstances.
IV. A private person acting on his own is justified in using non-deadly force upon another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to arrest or prevent the escape from custody of such other whom he reasonably believes to have committed a felony and who in fact has committed that felony: but he is justified in using deadly force for such purpose only when he reasonably believes it necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of deadly force.
V. A guard or law enforcement officer in a facility where persons are confined pursuant to an order of the court or as a result of an arrest is justified in using deadly force when he reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent the escape of any person who is charged with, or convicted of, a felony, or who is committing the felony of escape from official custody as defined in RSA 642:6. The use of non-deadly force by such guards and officers is justified when and to the extent the person effecting the arrest believes it reasonably necessary to prevent any other escape from the facility.
VI. A reasonable belief that another has committed an offense means such belief in facts or circumstances which, if true, would in law constitute an offense by such person. If the facts and circumstances reasonably believed would not constitute an offense, an erroneous though reasonable belief that the law is otherwise does not make justifiable the use of force to make an arrest or prevent an escape.
VII. Use of force that is not justifiable under this section in effecting an arrest does not render illegal an arrest that is otherwise legal and the use of such unjustifiable force does not render inadmissible anything seized incident to a legal arrest.
VIII. Deadly force shall be deemed reasonably necessary under this section whenever the arresting law enforcement officer reasonably believes that the arrest is lawful and there is apparently no other possible means of effecting the arrest.
Source. 1971, 518:1. 1981, 373:1-3, eff. Aug. 22, 1981.

SIKSUKR · 12-08-2006, 03:30 PM

Thanks Skip.

Misty Blue · 12-11-2006, 07:22 AM

'Never had a bad experiance with F&G. Their web site is tops. When you call them you get a courtious professional.

When I have run in to them in the woods they have been very easy to deal with. When I run into them at Station Portsmouth they are underway and working all the time. One of them (now a Lt.) helped me pull a six pointer off of granny hill in Moultonborough a while back.

I'm glad to send my tax dollars their way.

Misty Blue

lynnicken · 12-13-2006, 05:41 PM

I've been checked multiple times. On the water, on the ice, and in the woods. Every time they were professional, courteous and a pleasant to speak with. They checked the license, what I had gotten (if any), asked a few questions and wished me good luck as they went on there way. I'm sure the situation with your friend was an honest mistake but let's say they've seen this 10 times. How many were "honest mistakes" vs someone trying to pull something. Who do you give the break?

Taz · 12-17-2006, 08:37 AM

They don't always obey boating rules and regulations. 2 summers ago I was approaching Eagle Island coming from Saunders Bay and I observed a F&G boat with 2 officers approaching me head on just after passing between Eagle and Govenors. They were towing another boat and leaving a very large wake because the stern was plowing. I slowed down to no wake because I was approaching the narrow passage between the 2 islands and they were no more than 10 or 15 feet off my port. As the operator approached he began waving his hand up and down vertically signaling me to slow down while he continued to plow and leave a large wake.

Its bad enough dodging civilian boneheads, we shouldn't have to dodge boneheads wearing a uniform.

12-03-2006, 01:02 PM	#1
Superfly Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 11 Thanks: 1 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Experience with Fish & Game Just curious if anyone has any experiences that they would like to share with F&G Officers. I was out with a buddy this season and he was approched by Fish & Game. My understanding, his fish limit to keep was three but he was holding five in the tank while still fishing. His intention was to keep the three biggest at the end of the day and throw the rest back. On a quite rainy day, F&G approached, boarded his boat and inspected his holding tank. He was cited for two over the limit and received a fine in the area of $185, and lost his fishing license for the rest of the season. This was an honest misinterruptation of the fishing laws. F&G was all business, professional but no breaks. This certainly seems alot more harsh than some of the threads I read concerning Marine Patrol. I think both agencies are looking for operators under the influence and they'll use any legal reason to stop and check the operator. I applaud any agency that removes intoxicated operators from the water.

12-05-2006, 11:06 AM	#6
SIKSUKR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,075 Thanks: 215 Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts	I think meteotrade is right on this one.Its pretty simple to throw back the smaller fish when a larger one is caught.How else should the F&G act when confronted with this situation.I'm sure they have heard your friends argument many times before.If it truely was an error on your friends part,I guess it's a lesson learned the hard way. __________________ SIKSUKR

12-05-2006, 08:04 PM	#13
JTA Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Fort Pierce, Florida Posts: 233 Thanks: 33 Thanked 25 Times in 21 Posts	Fish and Game A few years ago a whacko went on a rampage, shot and killed a couple of people (one a trooper, I think), then he ran to a place he had in northern NH where he was captured by Fish and Game officers. It impressed me at the time that they're a pretty fierce bunch when necessary. Someone please correct me on the details if I'm wrong.

12-05-2006, 08:11 PM	#14
Skip Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Dover, NH Posts: 1,615 Thanks: 256 Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts	Final thoughts.... Can a conservation officer make a BWI arrest if he comes across an intoxicated boat operator? Yep....and they will. Are they out checking creels as a guise to make BWI arrests? Nope. Actually, a conservation officer, in the course of his duties, could (while on patrol in his vehicle) make a DWI arrest under the appropriate conditions. However, it happens very rarely and as has been pointed out they would most likely call in the appropriate law enforcement agency to take over the arrest. Bottom line? Conservation officers routinely make creel checks and issue the appropriate citation upon discovering a violation because that is what they are trained and empowered and expected to do. They also make an occasional arrest for a secondary violation when the opportunity presents itself, not because of some nefarious sublot but because that is what they are trained and empoered and expected to do! In retrospect regarding intent both Kamper & Nightwing are correct...

12-07-2006, 01:50 PM	#15
SIKSUKR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,075 Thanks: 215 Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts	Can't any of us make a "citizen's arrest" till a leo shows up or is that some old wives tale?Skip? __________________ SIKSUKR

12-03-2006, 01:11 PM	#2
wires1999 Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 34 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Gee I don't know about that one. I'd have to agree with F&G, what happened if some of the fish died while in the tank, it happens.

12-03-2006, 07:46 PM	#3
meteotrade Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Moultonboro Posts: 95 Thanks: 0 Thanked 16 Times in 6 Posts	Well, if his intention was to keep only the 3 largest fish at the end of the day, would it not have been prudent to hold only the 3 largest fish at any given time? I.e. if he caught a lunker and already had 3 in the tank, toss out the smallest to make room for the big one. I'm a catch and release guy, but that seems to be the common sense way to follow the rules.

12-04-2006, 05:26 PM	#5
Kamper Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Thornton's Ferry Posts: 1,296 Thanks: 67 Thanked 166 Times in 126 Posts	It's been a while since I got a license but I believe the wording on bags limits includes a term like "in possesion." For Christmas, get your friend a current copy of the reg.s so he can brush up. Good luck!

12-08-2006, 03:30 PM	#19
SIKSUKR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,075 Thanks: 215 Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts	Thanks Skip. __________________ SIKSUKR

12-11-2006, 07:22 AM	#20
Misty Blue Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 658 Thanks: 121 Thanked 283 Times in 98 Posts	Great Guys! (And Gals) 'Never had a bad experiance with F&G. Their web site is tops. When you call them you get a courtious professional. When I have run in to them in the woods they have been very easy to deal with. When I run into them at Station Portsmouth they are underway and working all the time. One of them (now a Lt.) helped me pull a six pointer off of granny hill in Moultonborough a while back. I'm glad to send my tax dollars their way. Misty Blue

12-13-2006, 05:41 PM	#21
lynnicken Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Manchvegas Posts: 6 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	never had a bad experience I've been checked multiple times. On the water, on the ice, and in the woods. Every time they were professional, courteous and a pleasant to speak with. They checked the license, what I had gotten (if any), asked a few questions and wished me good luck as they went on there way. I'm sure the situation with your friend was an honest mistake but let's say they've seen this 10 times. How many were "honest mistakes" vs someone trying to pull something. Who do you give the break?

12-17-2006, 08:37 AM	#22
Taz Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 345 Thanks: 3 Thanked 68 Times in 46 Posts	They don't always obey boating rules and regulations. 2 summers ago I was approaching Eagle Island coming from Saunders Bay and I observed a F&G boat with 2 officers approaching me head on just after passing between Eagle and Govenors. They were towing another boat and leaving a very large wake because the stern was plowing. I slowed down to no wake because I was approaching the narrow passage between the 2 islands and they were no more than 10 or 15 feet off my port. As the operator approached he began waving his hand up and down vertically signaling me to slow down while he continued to plow and leave a large wake. Its bad enough dodging civilian boneheads, we shouldn't have to dodge boneheads wearing a uniform.