(e) A person shall not be arrested for violation of this section except by a peace officer.
livetohunt wrote:I think they are considered peace officers, But really for the most part I dont see them arresting many people for violations. Thats just more of the crap they put in the wording of the laws. It says (A person shall not be ARRESTED for violation of this section except by a peace officer) it dont say they cant cite you, impound your truck, take your guns, take your dogs. And Im sure if you called them on it you would be told some BS about it being left up to the wardens discretion.
Rowdy wrote:Shawn, take a look at this. Edit, spell check it, whatever:
Recently I have been viewing a television broadcast on the National Geographic Channel called “Wild Justice”. The show involves Fish and Game Officers and their encounters with suspected fish and game violators while they are on patrol. I am an avid sportsman and support the protection of our natural resources and fish and game. However, I feel that this type of a program does not shed a positive light on ethical sportsmen. I also feel that the California Fish and Game Officer is not being portrayed to the public as an honorable, public servant and protector of our valued resources.
First of all, nearly every contact that is shown between officer and citizen is in a violation type setting. The officer has his bad guy. There is very little positive content towards hunting and fishing. The way the show is edited and produced it gives the appearance to the unknowing public that every person in the field hunting or fishing is a violator. In fact several of the comments made by fish and game officers give the impression that the DFG is full of officers who are against hunting and fishing. Where are the positive comments about the millions of legal hunters? The only pleasant comments by officers that are aired are to other law enforcement officers or the non-sporting public. Is this the type of attitude that you want to portray to the hunting public? Are legal hunters not a valuable source of information for officers in the field? I would venture to say that a large number of violations that are reported come from legal hunters in the field. Why aren’t we seeing these hunters in the show “Wild Justice”?
The most recent statistics that I can find from the US Fish and Wildlife Service shows that out of the US population six percent of people are hunters, six percent are anti hunters and eighty eight percent of the public are non hunters, meaning they have no persuasion one way or the other at present. We as hunters realize that the battleground for our future lies within that eighty eight percent. As sportsmen it is our responsibility to take every opportunity to shed a positive light on hunting and outdoor recreation. The show “Wild Justice” does not help us accomplish this goal. Hunters are in a fight against a corporate machine, namely the HSUS (Humane Society of the United States), who boast multi-million dollar budgets, professional research and marketing staff. As if that is not enough of a paramount battle we have a show like this that targets hunters and sends negative press to 22 million homes. We cannot afford for that type of negative tripe to find more of foothold in the minds of our non-sporting public.
Furthermore, the California Department of Fish and Game is funded by hunter’s dollars and the very assets that we pay to support are being used by a private corporation to send a negative message about hunting and fishing. While sportsmen do not condone the illegal taking or exploitation of wildlife in any form, we also do not want a corporation to obscure the true picture of hunting. It is no secret that National Geographic has moved it’s camp dangerously close to the enemy camp of the animal rights movement. So much so that sportsmen cannot support them or their views. If the DGF is in fact in support of the sound management of wildlife through hunting and fishing (still proclaimed by professional wildlife biologists as the best management tool) how can you allow our sportsmen funded department to proceed in a profit making venture of a private company that does not reflect that view? I find this unacceptable. This is not simply a show that portrays the average duties of wildlife officers across the state. There are many positive contacts that are made by officers in the field. Why are those not being broadcasted by the producers of the show?
My request is this; please cease any further cooperation with the National Geographic Channel and show producer Jerry Decker until the NatGeo Channel and the producer can report a more balanced script for the show.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest