Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

NR applicants

I for one, would take this chance to say Thank You" to the DNR officers. I have gotten to know several of them over the last few years, and have even hunted regularly with one person. They are good people who some times get frustrated trying to do to much with to little. I may dissagree with some of their policies and how they distribute funds, but not with the personel.

Some times I don't like the different interputations by different officers, but some times they don'y like my interputation.

During last summers budget cuts when they closed parts of some state parks, my family volunteered to help mow and keep up parts of our State Park. We were told that we could not because of some state regulations. I think if a volunteer system could be worked out that would free both people and funds for other things. If we all want to enjoy the outdoors then we all have to help, maybe with more than tax and license dollars.

From a law enforcement aspect I believe we all could be far more cooperative and useful. Who is in the woods and fields more than we are, and who sees more things than we do. How many of us have ever called an officer to report wrong doing? Not nearly as many of us as should have. When we see or hear of violations it should be our duty to report the info and let the officers decide how to deal with it, but most of us don't using the excuse " they won't do anything anyway". There only a few officers to cover a whole lot of country, but there are an awful lot of good lawabiding ethical sportsmen who could help rather than looking the other way. As I've said before the only to change some thing is to change ourselves first.

I'm done spouting off now. Merry Christmas!
 
Well said bowmaker.

People often complain to me about the illegal and unethical activities they observe but when I ask if they called the TIP line or their local conservation officer the answer is usually, "well, no."

Do we really want to improve the image of hunters and protect the future of hunting or do we just want to complain?
 
Doug, I'll admit to being a little frustrated and venting here myself, perhaps a more detailed explanation of my points will help....

Question: Do you have specific cases you're referring to or just your overall opinion? Do you mean there aren't enough conservation officers to adequately cover the state or the current ones aren't doing their job by enforcing the law?

Answer: The specific violation I have in mind is trespassing and deer drives with pickups & radios. I have notified the CO in our area in the past, given them details, names, and descriptions...the response we got..."if we don't catch them in the act, there isn't much we can do"....that tells me someone needs to be in the bushes waiting just like a State Trooper would to catch a speeder. Then we were told by the CO that he doesn't have the time or resources to do this. I don't have too much difficulty finding these kinds of violations year after year. I really don't relish spending what hunting time I have each year being on neighbor hood watch patrol gathering evidence to build a case for the CO.

I believe that some officers are doing their job and doing it well...I would be surprised if we are catching 10-15% of the game violations out there...I have no way to measure this other than comparing the times I've seen a CO-vs-times I've seen game violators. Yes, I do believe we are severely short handed for enforcement.

If these were rapes occuring rather than game violations and we only caught 25% of the bad guys...it wouldn't be acceptable. Appears it places the importance of game violations to that of a simple misdomeaner or speeding ticket...most people speed because the benefit of early arrival out weighs the risk of paying a small fine. Not a big deal if they get caught, pay a fine and take the risk again next year....hence breaking games laws and the risk of being caught isn't taken too seriously by the knuckle draggers.

Question: Define "aggressive enforcement". We can only enforce what we see or, in the case of a TIP call, what someone else has witnessed.

Answer: I would define "aggresive enforcement" as being pro-active...laying traps for violators....rather than being in a reactionary mode after a call from the TIP line....many times this leads to a cold trail.

Question: Going by that statement I'll make an assumption (sometimes a dangereous proposition) and say you don't have a law enforcement background. Sheriff's deputies and Iowa State Patrol troopers can and do enforce our fish and game laws--some individual officers more than others--with much of that to do with where they reside (urban vs. rural), even though that is not their main law enforcement emphasis. We (Conservation Officer) can enforce 321 code violations (motor vehicle--speeding, no driver's license, etc.) but don't do it to the extent the other enforcement agencies do.

Answer: You're correct, I have no enforcement background....I also see no evidence the majority of other agencies "aggressively" going after the violators. From time to time we see "special enforcement efforts" to catch speeders on particular roadways. Why can't the same be done regarding game violations? A number of years ago we raised funds to purchase a helicoper for Federal Game Officials to catch cronic waterfoul poaching in Louisana. Money for special enforcement could be creatively found. After all the hunting seasons are pretty narrowly focused to a small window of time....not like we have to do this all year long.

Take Deer season for example....only work the busy weekends (highest number of hunters in the field) and enlist every available LEO, plane, volunteer deputies, etc to catch, sting, and bust the cronic violators. A heavily concentrated effort would send a loud message throughout an area, most would think twice before committing a violation...wondering who may be watching them.

If the CO's are stretched to the limit now...how does the DNR plan to enforce with an additional proposed 8000 NR tags?.....

Appreciate any insight you may be privy to on this topic...none of my comments should be taken personal....sometimes frustration can oooze out of the keyboard unintentionaly.
wink.gif
 
Don't sweat it Doug, I think everyone believes you guys are doing your job but there just aren't enough of you to cover everything that goes on. I don't think we will ever see the day when all the money goes where it was intended to go. Way too many politics involved once the money flows in. Folks just need to get more involved and quit looking the other way on the violations and stop protecting the good ole boys.

G6
 
We ethical hunters are the ones who are most responsible for controlling illegal/unethical activities which occur during hunting seasons. Our conservation officers need our help and support to catch the lawbreakers. When there is only one officer to cover a large territory, they need us to be their eyes and ears. And do you think that spot lighting brother in law of yours would continue his exploits if you got in his face and told him you will turn him in the next time he does so and show up in court to testify as well? How many law breakers would continue to do so if they know their peers are watching and willing to turn them in? Too many of us turn our heads and say, "Someone should do something about this!" Finally, if we are really serious about law enforcement, then we need to let the DNR and law makers know that we are willing to pay extra for our licenses if that will aid our law enforcement efforts and permit more officers to be hired.
 
John V,well put you have to police your own before you point fingers at others.Non-residents are the minority there,we are a supply and demand.No matter what it cost,to some people money is no object.To me a working stiff,$310 is alot and so I'm enjoying the hunt and a big buck is a plus.
rockband.gif
 
We in law enforcement are being asked to do three times what we did several years ago do to budget restrictions. Do I go out and look for a drunk driver or a poacher?. The answer to that one is easy. If I happen to see a game violation I react! We are spread to thin. We as ethical hunters have to police ourselves. Inapropriate behavior is not tolerated by our DNR officers. They do a damn good job with what they have to work with. The priority of the DNR is just not the deer herd in Iowa as is speeders and drunk drivers to the Iowa State Patrol. We have alot of other important aspects to our jobs that keep us quite busy. Staying alive for one! We all love this sport and the opportunitiy to havrvest big whitetails here in this state. We owe alot to the officers of the DNR who have helped mold our policies and game management. Life does not revolve around a four legged creature with or without horns. Life is about people. We need your help, support, and understanding of what we are dealing with in our jobs. It's ok to be critical of what we do, but make sure you know what the true issues are. We can take the heat! That's what we do! We have broad shoulders believe me. John V you said it well!
 
John V,
I agree with you right up to the point about more officers. I don't think our lawmakers are convinced or will be that the CO's are a priority and our license $$ will not be directed there. Most CO's work their a$$ off and I appreciate that, but they are unfortunately not a priority. I'm not certain if hunting/fishing license fees are specifically earmarked for protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife. I thought they were. If not the DNR has numerous priorities that fall ahead of this. And even if the $$ do go there, the CO's are not seen as impacting revenue. Sorry, I think that's realistic.
 
John V...well said, I'd have no problem with an increase in license fees. No question the LEO's are doing a fine job and we need the help of other sportsmen.

When I made the statement: "My issue with the DNR is their poor enforcement of game laws".....My intent was to draw attention to what Trpr and Blind Sow have already stated.....your right about being asked to do three times the work, "that's the whole point". Perhaps rephrasing to something less offensive would help, like...."why is the DNR proposing watered down enforcement"?

When the DNR proposes to add 8000 NR tags, then they've added to the problem that already existed. Increase another 161 hunters per county and the quality of existing enforcement suffers....who's to blame?...I suppose hunters can call the TIP line all day long, but if the DNR continues to add to the problem thus decreasing it's own effectiveness....then I'll stand by my previous statement and ask why are they giving us watered down enforcement?

It only takes a few minutes reviewing threads on this board to realize there are a lot of people fed up with unethical and illegal hunting behavior....what the DNR proposes with added NR tags certainly doesn't help.

If the proposed increases come with assurances that enforcement will proportionately keep pace....then I have no problem with it. So far we have not seen these assurances.
 
Rembrandt

I'll try and answer your questions the best I can.

You said that the specific violation you had in mind was trespassing and deer drives with pickups and radios.

If we (COs) receive a call about trespassing we'll go out and talk with the person reporting the incident. We are more than happy to file a trespassing charge--however--it is up to the landowner/tenent to actually appear in court (if the defendant pleads not guilty) along with us because he/she knows their property lines and who has/doesn't have permission to be hunting on it. Unfortunately, many times they find out the trespasser is a neighbor or someone they know and they just want us to "chew butt" and not write a citation. That won't happen. The landowner can do the chewing. If they don't want to press charges--speaking personally--I walk.

As for the use of pickups and radios--if we see them we cite them. The Motorola Talkabout radios have become very popular--more so than the CB--because walkers can take them in the field with them to communicate with others in their party. We cited numerous people this past deer season with their illegal use and seized everyone of them. As one of our officers told an individual (who he's cited numerous times over the years) "I don't think you guys could kill a deer legally!" It's pretty hard to break that cycle when you stop a truck and either the wife or the son is the one operating the radio while dad does the driving. One guy tried to hide his Talkabout in his son's child seat.

"Appears it places the importance of game violations to that of a simple misdemeanor or speeding ticket."

You are correct since all Iowa fish and game violations are simple misdemeanors by law. You will find it a very uphill battle (politically and legislatively) to increase them to anything but that. And, with some of the hard core poachers, spotlighters, etc., if they get caught, whatever the fine is they just chalk it up to the cost of "doing business".

You said you'd "define aggresive enforcement as being proactive...laying traps for violators...rather than being in a reactionary mode after a call from the TIP line...many times this leads to a cold trail."

We set up deer decoys as much as possible---however---as good as it is when we catch someone it, more times than not, it is just time spent waiting for something that never materializes. By policy we have to utilize a minimum of three officers when we set up the decoy--basically one officer at each end of a road and one who is watching the decoy to alert the other officers if the decoy is shot at. That leaves at least two areas unattended for however long it takes those COs to drive from their respective area, set up and wait, and then drive back home. It is not, in reality, a very "cost productive" way of doing business.

"Take deer season for example...only work the busy weekends (highest number of hunters in the field) and enlist every available LEO, plane, volunteer deputies, etc. to catch, sting and bust the chronic violator."

If only it were that simple. You are talking coordinating multiple law enforcement agencies for something (game law enforcemenet) that some people don't give a high priority to--especially in light of the cuts to both personnel and budgets--that their agencies are experiencing.

If we put all our time into the opening weekends, yes, that is when the most people are out, and yes, we will catch the ones using radios, possibly trespassing, having loaded shotguns in their vehicle---but---you are not going to catch the poacher. They know that is when all the COs are out it in the field and they do their work at different times.

Speaking for our southwest district we are very fortunate to have great cooperation with the State Patrol and their pilot Scott Pigsley. He loves to work with us and he has had great backup from his superiors to do it. Over the years it has been the exception when Scott couldn't fly when we wanted him to.

Without the plane, either working spotlighters or deer hunters, it is really like finding the needle in the haystack without the eye in the sky. If you're working spotlighters alone all you can do is set up on a nice vantage point and hope you see a light and then can get to it. With the plane it can see a very large area and direct ground officers to the vehicle. In fact this fall on the 50 mile chase the fleeing vehicle went dark several times, and the dust forced the pursuing vehicle keep a good distance away. The only reason they were caught was the plane could still see them and finally directed us to the two individuals--one was 18 years old and the other was 12. Several times they were going 100 mph.

It is frustrating for both the COs and the sportsmen and women who really care that we can't do more. Hopefully these answers give a little more explanation on the limitations we have to work with.

Doug Clayton

State Conservation Officer
 
Rembrandt I understand the point you are trying to make but it just dosen't work that way. With the illegal trafficing of narcotics increasing across the U.S. we have not increased the amount of officers working interdiction on the Interstate. We continue to make large seizure's and make an impact. Our advantage is that we are smarter than those who think they are getting away with something. I am not in favor of increasing the NR tags by 8000 either. I would except some type of comprimise in the number. I really don't feel that any type of increase would jeapordize the quality of enforcement we have now due to the facts that have already been stated. No matter how many officers you have out there you can only be in one place at one time on any given day. We have to rely on the ethical hunter to help out. There are those who get away clean sometimes. Believe me when I tell you it catches up to them and they eventually do something stupid and get caught and hopefully prosecuted to the fullest.
That is not always the case though. We could add ten troopers to our post to do interdiction on our Interstate. The drugs and money will continue to flow. Education I feel is the key. We have a responsibility to be ethical as well as teach young hunter's ethical practices. Eventually things can change. Enforcement is just a small piece in the puzzle to solving some of the problems we have discussed. Just my two cents worth.
 
Blind Sow/Trpr...been out hunting for the past few days, appreciate the replies...always good to know the other side of the of the picture.

Thanks...Rembrandt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom